Address : St.

Dominic‟s Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400050, INDIA

(Professor in charge: Professor Jenny Benoy – HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT)

-1-
 CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the following individuals have contributed significantly toward the making of
this project report

Louis Almeida Roll No. 3402

Ramesh Singh Bisht Roll No. 3405

Meyrick D‟abreo Roll No. 3407

Brent Gomes Roll No. 3422

Nishant Patki Roll No. 3442

Clifford Solanki Roll No. 3454

Of T.Y. B.M.S. Div. „A‟

And submitted on the 23rd of August 2011

-2-
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
A work is never a work of an individual. We owe a sense of gratitude to the intelligence and co-
operation of all those involved in the completion of this exclusive project.

We sincerely express our gratitude to Professor Jenny Benoy, faculty at St. Andrew‟s College,
Bandra (W), for giving us the opportunity to do this project.

And last but not the least; we would like to thank all those who helped us directly or indirectly in
the successful completion of this project work.

-3-
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The term `whistle blowing' is a relatively recent entry into the vocabulary of public and corporate
affairs, although the phenomenon itself is not new.

Whistle blowing is informing on illegal and unethical practices in the work place and is becoming
increasingly common as employees speak out about their ethical concerns at work. It can have
disastrous consequences for the individual, as well as threatening the survival of the organization
that is being complained about.

-4-
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE NO.
Introduction 6

Objectives 7

History of Whistleblowing 8

Meaning of Whistleblowing 10

Types of Whistleblowers 10

Reasons for Whistle blowing 10

Guidelines for Whistle blowing 11

How to Blow the Whistle 13

Benefits of Whistle Blowing 14

Risks of Whistle Blowing 14

Statistics for Perspective 15

Ethical Dilemma 15

2002: The Year of the Whistle blower 16

CASE : Enron 17

CASE : N.H.A.I. (Satyendra Dubey) 19

CASE : Pfizer (Ashok Idnani) 20

CASE : Indian Oil Corporation (Manjunath Shanmugham) 22

The Whistleblowers Protection Bill 24

Q & A‟s 27

Conclusion 29

Bibliography 30

-5-
 INTRODUCTION
A whistle blower is an employee, former employee, or member of an organization,
especially a business or government agency, who reports misconduct to people or entities
that have the power and presumed willingness to take corrective action.

Generally the misconduct is a violation of law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to
public interest, such as fraud, health/safety violations, and corruption.

-6-
 OBJECTIVES
 To encourage students to think about business ethical issues as they relate whistle blowing
in their own academic, professional or work contexts

 To encourage students to think about whistle blowing and its ramifications

 To solicit student point of view on the topic of whistle blowing

 To point out the issues that underlie contextual specificity of whistleblowing

-7-
 HISTORY OF WHISTLEBLOWING
Attitudes toward whistle blowing have evolved considerably during the past 50 years, from the
early days where loyalty to the company was the ruling norm, to the present time when public
outrage about corporate misconduct has created a more auspicious climate for whistle blowing.

Prior to the 1960s, corporations had broad autonomy in employee policies and could fire an
employee at will, even for no reason. Employees were expected to be loyal to their organizations at
all costs. Among the few exceptions to this rule were unionized employees, who could only be fired
for "just cause," and government employees because the courts upheld their constitutional right to
criticize agency policies. In private industry, few real mechanisms for airing grievances existed
although, for example, IBM claimed from its earliest days, to have an effective open-door policy
that allowed employees to raise any issue.

In part because of this lack of protection for whistleblowers, problems were often concealed rather
than solved. Probably the most egregious example was in asbestos manufacturing, where the link to
lung disease was clearly established as early as 1924 but actively suppressed by company officials.
The first product liability lawsuit against an asbestos manufacturer was not successfully
promulgated until 1971.

The 1970s were notable for cases in which employees who had known of product defects or hazards
decided to "swallow the whistle. The result was that consumers and other employees were seriously
harmed; and when the information went public, so were the organizations that were damaged by
awards in the millions.

Even in cases where whistle blowing occurred, it was not always heeded. In 1972, Firestone Tire
Director of Development Thomas A. Robertson sent top management a memo warning that the 500
tire was inferior. His warning was ignored despite reports about poor performance from major
customers such as General Motors, and the 500 tire was kept on the market. By the time Time
magazine reported that accidents caused by blowouts had resulted in more than 41 deaths and
hundreds of serious injuries, the company had already replaced 3 million tires and spent millions of

-8-
dollars in personal injury lawsuits. If Robertson had received an internal hearing or blown the
whistle externally, such disasters for the public and the company could have been avoided.

There have, of course, been successful cases of whistle blowing although even in these cases, the
personal and professional toll on the individuals has been heavy. In 1996, Jeffery Wigand, a
tobacco researcher, revealed that Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. knew tobacco was addictive.
His revelations had a dramatic impact on public policy and public perceptions of the tobacco
industry. However, although he was vindicated by the attention he received in the media and by the
fact that after his revelations, victims of tobacco-related illnesses began to be successful in their
litigation against the tobacco companies; he still experienced severe personal consequences
including threats against his family, loss of income, divorce, and the threat of litigation for breach
of confidentiality.

-9-
 MEANING OF WHISTLEBLOWING
Whistle blowing has been defined as -
 'raising concerns about misconduct within an organization or within an independent
structure associated with it'
(Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life)
 'bringing an activity to a sharp conclusion as if by the blast of a whistle'
(Oxford English Dictionary)
 'giving information (usually to the authorities) about illegal and underhand practices„
(Chambers Dictionary)

TYPES OF WHISTLE BLOWERS

Whistle blowers can be classified as under -

 Internal whistle blowers report misconduct to another employee or a superior within their
organization
 External whistle blowers report misconduct to outside persons or entities

REASONS FOR WHISTLEBLOWING

 A violation of a law, rule or regulation
 Gross mismanagement
 A gross waste of funds
 An abuse of authority
 A substantial and specific danger to public health or safety
- 10 -
 GUIDELINES FOR WHISTLEBLOWERS
Magnitude of consequences
An employee considering whistleblowing must ask himself or herself these questions:
 How much harm has been done or might be done to victims?
 Will the victims really be "beneficiaries"? If one person is or will be harmed, it is unlikely to
be a situation that warrants whistleblowing.

Probability of effect
 The probability that the action will actually take place and will cause harm to many people
must be considered. An employee should be very sure that the action in question will
actually happen. If the employee does not know if the action will happen and if the action
will harm people (or the environment), the employee should reconsider his or her plan to
blow the whistle.
 In addition, the employee must have absolute proof that the event will occur and that people
(or the environment) will be harmed.

Temporal immediacy
 An employee must consider the length of time between the present and the possibly harmful
event.
 An employee must also consider the urgency of the problem in question. The more
immediate the consequences of the potentially unethical practice, the stronger the case for
whistleblowing. For example, the effects of toxic waste dumping that are likely to occur in a
week are more pressing than the firing of 100 employees next year.

- 11 -
Proximity
The physical closeness of the potential victims must be considered. For example, a company that is
depriving workers of medical benefits in a nearby town has a higher proximity than one 1,000 miles
away. The question arises about matters of emotional proximity or situations in which the ethical
question relates to a victim with some emotional attachment to the whistleblower.

Concentration of Effort
A person must determine the intensity of the unethical practice or behavior. The question is how
much intensity does the specific infraction carry. For example, according to this principle, stealing
P1000 from one person is more unethical than stealing Rs 1 from 1,000 people.

- 12 -
 HOW TO BLOW THE WHISTLE
The “mom” test
 “I‟m going to be in this industry a long time. Will this damage my reputation with my boss,
colleagues, future customers or employers?”

The personal responsibility test

 Weigh personal obligations to family and etc. that can only be met if you have an income.
 “Will harm avoided be greater than harm incurred?”

Do it anonymously
 Let the evidence speak for itself and protect yourself if possible

Do it in a group
 Charges have more weight and won‟t seem like a personal vendetta.

Present just the evidence

 Leave interpretation of facts to others.

Work through internal channels

 Start with your immediate supervisor or follow the standard reporting procedure

Work through external channels

 Go public (biggest risk)
- 13 -
 BENEFITS OF WHISTLEBLOWING
The actions of whistle blowers are beneficial to society in the following ways -
 Businesses that engaged in unethical practices have been shut down because of the actions
of whistle blowers.
 The lives of individuals and whole communities have been saved by whistleblowers.
 Severe damage to the environment has been stopped by the courage and persistence of
whistle blowers.
 Whistle blowing upholds the law, protects many from the impact of wrongdoing, reveals the
truth and prevents further wrongdoing.

RISKS OF WHISTLEBLOWING
An employee who witnesses unethical business practices at work may want to think carefully
before making the decision to inform an authority of the practice, as the consequences of
whistleblowing are often extreme. Whistle-blowing can bring many negative repercussions.
 Firstly, it can bring termination. It is difficult to remain, no matter how justifiable the
decision to reveal illegalities and no matter how much the revelations actually benefit
others.
 Secondly, big-time revelations could bring down the company, causing everyone to lose
their jobs.
 Thirdly, the whistle blower can get stigmatized as "disloyal" and be discredited in some
way.
 Fourthly, sometimes colleagues may exact some form of revenge or somehow "scapegoat"
the person.
Thus, the whistle blower is somehow blamed for the wrongdoing and fired without an
opportunity for vindication. In small communities, the whistle-blower and family may be
subject to hostile treatment, viewed as acting out of self-interest, perhaps to gain advancement
at others' expense.

- 14 -
 STATISTICS FOR PERSPECTIVE
Percentage of whistleblowers who felt / experienced an overall negative effect as a result of their
whistleblowing :
 51% of govt employees lost their job
 82% harassed by superior
 69% watched closely after blowing the whistle
 63% lost job responsibilities
 60% fired
 10% attempted suicide

Percentage of whistleblowers who felt / experienced an overall positive effect as a result of their
whistleblowing :
 20% felt their actions resulted in positive changes
 More than 50% (of responders) would do it again

ETHICAL DILEMA
The Mum Effect (reluctance to blow the whistle)
 Audit report may contradict the best judgment and vested interests of the powerful
players backing a project; fear of reprisals

The Deaf Effect (reluctance to hear the whistle)

 “I wrote lots of reports. I escalated things as much as I could, but in the end, they said,
„We really appreciate your efforts, but thanks, but no thanks‟”

The Blind Effect (reluctance to see the need to blow the whistle)
 Established audit functions do not operate effectively because they try to conceal the
information from management

- 15 -
 2002 – YEAR OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER
Sherron Watkins (ENRON)
 Former Vice President of The Enron Corporation

 Alerted then-CEO Ken Lay in August 2001 to accounting irregularities within the
company

 Warned that Enron 'might implode in a wave of accounting scandals.

 Testified before Congressional Committees from the House and Senate investigating
Enron's demise.

 Lauded in the press for her courageous actions, but left her job at Enron after a few
months when she wasn't given much to do

Coleen Rowley (FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION – U.S.A.)

 FBI staff attorney

 Wrote 13-page memo to FBI Director about pre-9/11 intelligence in May 2002

 Testified for the Senate Judiciary Committee

 Concerned the FBI was becoming more bureaucratic and micromanaged

 Helped government focus on better intelligence management

Cynthia Cooper (WORLDCOM)

 WorldCom‟s Director of Internal Audit

 Her team discovered $3 billion in questionable expenses

 Met with 4 executives to track down and explain the undocumented expenses

 Disclosed findings, WorldCom stock frozen, corporate credit rating went from B+ to CCC-

 Remained as VP of Internal Audit, not promoted, no gratitude, resented by employees

- 16 -
 CASE STUDIES
1) ENRON
Company Profile
 Enron Corporation was an American energy company based in Houston, Texas.
 Enron employed around 21,000 people and was one of the world's leading electricity,
natural gas, pulp and paper, and communications companies, with claimed revenues of
$111 billion in 2000.
 Fortune named Enron "America's Most Innovative Company" for 6 consecutive years.
 It was formed in 1985 when Houston Natural Gas merged with InterNorth.
 After several years of international and domestic expansion involving complicated deals
and contracts, Enron was billions of dollars into debt.
 All of this debt was concealed from shareholders through partnerships with other
companies, fraudulent accounting, and illegal loans

What Went Wrong

The scandal was related to misleading the public about the true condition of the company. The
debts and losses of the company were hidden and the revenues were shown increasing.

 Enron shares hit high prices near $90. After the fraud detection the share prices fell to $0.12.
Large number of investors lost their money comprising total loss of $11 bn
 The chairman Mr. Ken Lay admitted that the company performance was not good at any
point of time. The accounting firm Arthur Andersen was also involved in the whole process
and they are also blocked from further business.

- 17 -
Reasons for Downfall
 Deregulation
Government decision to let gas prices float with the currents of the market
 Mark-to-Market
Accounting practice that allowed Enron to book potential future profits on the very day a
deal was signed
 Special Purpose Entities
This is a legal entity (usually a limited company of some type or, sometimes, a limited
partnership) created to fulfill narrow, specific or temporary objectives. SPE's are typically
used by companies to isolate the firm from financial risk. A company will transfer assets to
the SPE for management or use the SPE to finance a large project thereby achieving a
narrow set of goals without putting the entire firm at risk.

The Whistle Blower

 Sherron Watkins was labeled a corporate whistleblower based on the letter she sent in
August 2001 to Kenneth Lay, Chairman of the Board of the Enron Corporation.
 In her letter she identified Enron's unethical and illegal financial management practices, but
her letter was never made public until the company's stock was all but worthless.
 Sherron was lauded in the press for her courageous actions, but left her job at Enron after a
few months when she wasn't given much to do

- 18 -
2) N.H.A.I. (Satyendra Dubey)
 Satyendra Dubey was a 31 year old engineer from Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur.
 He worked as a Deputy General Manager for the National Highway Authority of India.
 He was one of those rare young men who was completely and uncomplicatedly honest and
died for simply doing the right thing.
 He was gunned down by the mafia in Gaya one early November morning, nearly a year after
he had complained of corruption on the Golden Quadrilateral project to the Prime Minister's
office.
 Knowing the dangers that surround honest people in a corrupt system, in his letter, Dubey
had requested that his name be kept secret, a request that wasn't honored.
 The letter was sent from the PMO to the Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways and
then to the National Highway Authority of India, with which Dubey was working as Deputy
General Manager.
 His death speaks volumes about the growing nexus between politicians and the mafia.
 It also highlights the illegal procedures/ways involved in awarding contracts and also the
allegedly fraudulent pre-qualification bids in connection to big development projects.

- 19 -
3) PFIZER (Ashok Idnani)
 Mr. Ashok S. Idnani, an executive in the Finance Division of Pfizer India had worked with
the company for 28 years.

 Idnani accused local managers of taking kick-backs in connection with selling off company
assets, including selling Pfizer‟s manufacturing facility in Hyderabad, at 60% of market
value. He then petitioned the Indian government in Hyderabad and received documents
which showed that he was wrong - the plant was actually sold for less than 10% of the
market value assessed by the government.

 During the four years that followed, Idnani alleges his salary was frozen, Pfizer withheld his
bonuses and many other acts of retaliation took place.

 Finally, after three years of increasing concern about numerous dubious transactions that
Idnani could monitor in his centrally placed position in the finance department, he finally
gave up on achieving change locally. On November 17, 2005, Idnani contacted Pfizer‟s
leadership team with his allegations.

 Pfizer's senior management in New York had every reason to take Idnani‟s allegations
seriously, both based on his long tenure with Pfizer and his central position within the
company, they ordered an investigation.

 In January 17, 2006, Pfizer, New York, despatched a two-member team to Mumbai, India,
to meet with Idnani and they questioned him at length about the documents he sent to them.
Idnani claims that at this meeting it was agreed that he would be informed of the findings
and actions to be taken by line management in New York. In the end, however, he was not
given any information of such decisions

 Then, on August 28, 2006, Idnani‟s employment was abruptly terminated, after 28 years
with Pfizer.
- 20 -
  Idnani is now 54 and unemployed, in spite of a science degree and a master of law degree.

However, Idnani also claims that Pfizer did, in fact, take some action: “When the next plant was
sold at Chandigarh, in 2006-2007, they sent in a person from Pfizer N.Y, to personally interview all
bidders and overlook the negotiation. For the first time local managers did not have full authority
and control of negotiation for sale of a major manufacturing plant.”

Idnani‟s final words were, “The lesson I have learned - don't be smart - if seniors are defrauding
the company, look away.”

- 21 -
4) THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION
(Manjunath Shanmugham)
 Manjunath earned his Computer Science Engineering degree from Sri Jayachamarajendra
College of Engineering, Mysore, and an MBA from Indian Institute of Management
Lucknow.

 While working for the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) in Lucknow, he had ordered two petrol
pumps at Lakhimpur Kheri sealed for selling adulterated fuel for three months.

 When the pump started operating again a month later, Manjunath decided to conduct a
surprise raid around November 19, 2005.

 Having not heard from his son for three days, his father, M Shanmughan, had sent an SMS:
"How are you?". There was no reply because that very night, during his inspection,
Manjunath had been shot dead in Gola Gokarannath town of Lakhimpur Kheri.

 His body, riddled with at least six bullets, was found in the backseat of his own car, which
was being driven by two employees of the petrol pump.

 Both were arrested and the main accused, pump-owner Pawan Kumar Mittal, was held on
November 23 along with seven others.

The Murder Trial

 Manjunath's death came close on the heels of the assassination of Satyendra Dubey,
suspected to have been for similar reasons (fighting corruption).

 Following the murder, there was immense media spotlight on the case. S. Manjunath's
batchmates from IIM Lucknow also kept the story alive.

 Fortunately, the Manjunath Shanmugam Trust took up the case with dogged determination.
The Trust lawyer Mr. I.B Singh, the Public Prosecutor Sri Chandramohan Singh, Trustees,

- 22 -
 volunteers and supporters worked hard to ensure quick justice.16 months after the murder,
all eight accused were guilty by the Lakhimpur Khiri Sessions Court (not a fast track court)

 The main accused, Mittal and 7 accomplices were convicted of murder by Sessions judge of
Lakhimpur Kheri

 Bail appeals by the convicted killers are being heard in the Lucknow High Court - the
Manjunath Shanmugam Trust lawyer Mr. I.B Singh continues to work closely with the case.

 Petrol pump owner Pawan Kumar Mittal, the main accused in the sensational murder of
Indian Oil sales manager Manjunath, was sentenced to death by a district court, while the
other seven accused were given life imprisonment on March 21 2005.

The Aftermath

 Indian Oil Corporation paid P26 lakhs compensation to the family. The matter of
adulteration in diesel was taken up by the Energy Coordination Committee chaired by Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh. One of the policy remedies being considered is to minimize the
subsidy in the price of kerosene (used as cooking fuel by the weaker classes), and to explore
alternate mechanisms for implementing the subsidy. Subsequently, several tanker trucks,
laden with thousands of liters of kerosene, were seized en route to a district neighboring
Lakhimpur Kheri

 A pan IIM initiative, "The Manjunath Shanmugam Trust" was registered on 23 February
2006, Manjunath's birth anniversary. With immediate objectives of fighting the case, they
have a broader agenda of improving governance in Indian public life.

 On 26 March 2007, the main accused Pawan Kumar Mittal was awarded death sentence,
while the other seven accused were sentenced to life imprisonment.

The Trust runs India's first (and only) National Right To Information Act Helpline (080)666-00-
999. The 12*7 (8 am - 8 pm) multi language Helpline, serviced by professionally trained call center
agents, guides citizens through the features of this powerful tool against corruption.

- 23 -
 THE WHISTLEBLOWERS’
PROTECTION BILL
The Whistleblowers Protection bill has been passed by the Union Cabinet on August 9, 2010. The
bill is officially known as the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the
Disclosure Bill, 2010

Key Features

 It will protect the whistleblowers from any discrimination or victimization in their

workplace.

 It provides for concealing the identity of a citizen who discloses information about
the misuse of power and money. Those who reveal the identity of the whistleblower
will be held liable and penalized, by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).

 The offenders will be liable for imprisonment up to 3 years and a fine up to P50000.

 There will be penalization in case of delays in response, under the Right to

Information Act. A fine of P250 will be imposed for every day of delay beyond the
set deadline.

 There will be penalization for officials who try to mislead the CVC.

 The bill provides for addressing complaints against public sector employees and
employees of the Central and the State Government.

 The bill also ensures the honest government officials are not harassed in anyway but
those individuals who file false complaints and charges will be liable for
imprisonment up to 2 years and fine up to P30000.

- 24 -
The Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010

Commonly known as the Whistleblower„s Bill, it seeks to establish a mechanism to register

complaints on any allegations of corruption or willful misuse of power against a public
servant. The Bill also provides safeguards against victimization of the person who makes the
complaint.

Highlights of the Bill

 The Bill seeks to protect whistleblowers, i.e. persons making a public interest disclosure
related to an act of corruption, misuse of power, or criminal offence by a public servant.

 Any public servant or any other person including a non-governmental organization may
make such a disclosure to the Central or State Vigilance Commission.
 Every complaint has to include the identity of the complainant.

 The Vigilance Commission shall not disclose the identity of the complainant except to the
head of the department if he deems it necessary. The Bill penalizes any person who has
disclosed the identity of the complainant.

 The Bill prescribes penalties for knowingly making false complaints.

Key Issues and Analysis

 The Bill aims to balance the need to protect honest officials from undue harassment with
protecting persons making a public interest disclosure. It punishes any person making false
complaints. However, it does not provide any penalty for victimizing a complainant.

 The CVC was designated to receive public interest disclosures since 2004 through a
government resolution. There have been only a few hundred complaints every year. The
provisions of the Bill are similar to that of the resolution. Therefore, it is unlikely that the
number of complaints will differ significantly.

 The power of the CVC is limited to making recommendations. Also it does not have any
power to impose penalties. This is in contrast to the powers of the Karnataka Lokayukta
and the Delhi Lokayukta.
- 25 -
 The Bill has a limited definition of disclosure and does not define victimization. Other
countries such as US, UK, and Canada define disclosure more widely and define
victimization.

 The Bill differs on many issues with the proposed Bill of the Law Commission and the 2nd
Administrative Reform Commission‟s report. These include non-admission of anonymous
complaints and lack of penalties for officials who victimize whistleblowers.

- 26 -
 Q & A’s
When an employee learns of apparently unlawful behavior on the part of his or her employer,
does the employee have an ethical duty to blow the whistle on the employer?

The employee realizes that there is a difficult decision to be made. He may realize that:

 He is being told (or expected) to do something that he believes is wrong, even illegal
 He faces a conflict between following orders and obeying his conscience
 Whatever direction he chooses may be irreversible - if he decides to „go along‟, then he may
become implicated, and if not he will be in conflict with the system.

Is whistle blowing ethical?

Whistle blowers tend to be extremely ethical employees who believe they are acting in the best
interest of the company. Whatever position one takes, it seems clear that whistle blowing is a
strong means to deter corporate wrong-doing. However, when this right is abused, whistle blowers
can become as unethical as the companies that they are blowing the whistle on.

Do any ethical duties or obligations of the employee come into conflict in such a situation? If
so, what are they, and how does the employee balance them?

The individual grappling with this decision will typically agonize at some length over how to
proceed. They may seek the advice of close friends and perhaps a lawyer; and they will surely
discuss their options with their family, who will also be affected by the decision.

Finally, they settle on a course of action. The decision may be to explicitly refuse to follow orders,
or to seemingly 'go along' – but to gather evidence in order to expose the wrongdoing later. Many
people will understandably decide to do as they are told, fearful of the consequences of 'rocking the
boat'.
- 27 -
What practical consequences may one face if he or she becomes a whistle-blower?

The harsh reality is that vested interests usually triumph: whenever the laws are inadequate, the
media lazy and compliant, or citizens inattentive, then wrongdoers in high positions can discredit
their accusers and bury embarrassing facts. In this situation odds are heavily stacked against
whistleblowers, and only a few can ever succeed.

Aside from the devastating effects on their lives, perhaps the most painful aspect for most
whistleblowers is that there is no end to the story. For most, the harassment in various forms never
stops. Most are never vindicated: usually their allegations remain unproven or clouded in doubt and
controversy. And most never receive justice: the problems that they sought to uncover are not
corrected, and no-one is called to account.

What other consequences are likely to occur if the whistle is blown?

Whistle blowing can bring many negative repercussions.

 First, it can bring termination. It is difficult to remain, no matter how justifiable the decision
to reveal illegalities and no matter how much the revelations actually benefit others.
 Second, big-time revelations could bring down the company, causing everyone to lose their
jobs.
 Third, the whistle blower can get stigmatized as "disloyal" and be discredited in some way.
 Fourth, sometimes colleagues may exact some form of revenge or somehow "scapegoat" the
person. Thus, the whistle-blower is somehow blamed for the wrongdoing and fired without
an opportunity for vindication.

In small communities, the whistle-blower and family may be subject to hostile treatment,
viewed as acting out of self-interest, perhaps to gain advancement at others' expense.

- 28 -
 CONCLUSION
 Whistle blowing is often considered a dilemma in terms of being ethical or not.

 Some might believe that whistle blowing, if done selflessly and for the benefit of the
company or for the society as a whole, it is ethical and holds more importance than any
other deed done for the company by the employees.

 But there is also another belief that if the whistle blowing is done selfishly with a motive of
revenge or for raking up favoritism from the senior officials of the company, it is unethical.

 In Indian context, the whistle blowing protection laws aren‟t effective or implemented
properly and due to this reason many officials of the types of Satyender Dubey lost their
lives.

 Had there be any law to protect them, things might have been different.

 So there is a need for a proper implementation of the Whistle blowers Protection Bill by
both the Central and State Government of India to save the whistle blowers from any harm
to their lives.

- 29 -
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
student.vwc.edu/~mmbusam

www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs

fightcorruption.wikidot.com/other

www.seat.utulsa.edu/cs4513/whistleblowing

- 30 -