Correct Option (C)
This option represents a judicious and effective course of action. By verbally apprising a higher officer of the indirect solicitations for a bribe, the citizen addresses the corrupt practice without immediately escalating to a formal complaint that might lack direct evidence. This approach serves multiple purposes:
- It demonstrates integrity and courage in confronting corruption.
- It leverages administrative hierarchy to exert pressure on the errant official, increasing the likelihood of the citizen's work being processed.
- It seeks resolution through an internal mechanism, which can be more pragmatic and less confrontational than a formal complaint, especially when only "feelers" have been sent.
Incorrect Options:
Option (A): Giving a bribe is an unethical and illegal act. It perpetuates corruption, undermines the integrity of public institutions, and exposes the citizen to legal ramifications. This action is contrary to the principles of good governance and civic responsibility.
Option (B): While ethically sound in not succumbing to corruption, this approach may prove ineffective. If the official is persistent in demanding a bribe through indirect means, merely continuing to push the application without addressing the underlying issue may lead to indefinite delays and non-resolution of the citizen's work. It avoids confrontation but does not actively challenge or resolve the corrupt behavior.
Option (D): Sending a formal complaint, though principled, can be premature and challenging without concrete evidence of a direct bribe demand. When only "feelers" are involved, substantiating a formal complaint can be difficult, potentially leading to administrative complications, lack of action, or even adverse reactions without resolving the immediate work. This option lacks the strategic balance offered by first engaging a higher authority verbally.