1. Clause 1 of the IESL Code of Ethics states that "Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and proper utilization of funds in the performance of their professional duties. It shall take precedence over their responsibility to the profession, to sectional or private interests, employers or to other engineers" Clause 6 of the IESL Code of Ethics states that "Engineers shall apply their skills and knowledge in the interest of their employer or client for whom they shall act, in professional matters, as faithful agents or trustees, so far as they do not conflict with the other requirements listed here and the general public interest." The Question: Assume you are a very junior engineer of a public company where the shares are held by shareholders who are public at large. The Directors are appointed by the Board of anagement and the company undertakes public works that are for the benefit of the public. You work in a team headed by a Manager who works under a company appointed Director. You come across many irregularities that may have an impact in the long run on safety, health and welfare of the public. You are aware that the company is well managed and the fund utilization is very efficient and no public finds are wasted. The team and the management have placed confidence in you, as you are a very faithful employee of the company. Please explain what you will do under these circumstances ensuring you comply with the Code of Conduct of the IESL Q2. A very senior and a respected Engineer A Perera was heading an engineering consultancy firm Excellent Design Engineers (EDE) registered in Sri Lanka. There were more than 80 engineers, architects, quantity surveyors employed at EDE. The EDE was appointed as part of a consortium that undertook the engineering services study of 180MW Jalawidu Hydro Power Project (JHPP in 1998. The consortium comprised of several international engineering consultancy companies. They formed themselves into a Joint Venture Jalawidu Hydro Power Project (JHPPJV) and carried out the studies that included an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Study. Due to the very complex nature of the project the consortium had a Project Manager (PM) who was an expatriate. His Deputy Project Manager (DPM) was a Sri Lankan by the name Eng. B Silva. A large contingent of both expatriate and Sri Lankan engineers was involved in the feasibility study, EIA study and the detailed design work of the project. The study period was two years. At the end of the study the consortium JHPPJV completed their task and handed over all the required documents that ran into 15 volumes including the EIA study, confirmation of the feasibility and the detailed design with all the necessary drawings. Most of the expatriate engineers left Sri Lanka and the work was thereafter handled by the DPM of the JHPPJv. He was while working as the DPM, engaged in the study of an alternative to JHPP in the same river basin without the knowledge of the PM. He proposed his alternative project was much cheaper, more environmentally sound, and yielded marginally less energy but economically far superior. This claim came at a crucial time when the funding for the project was almost finalized. The result was that the funding was put on hold and the Government directed that the JHPP original design and all other alternatives be studied again. The CEO of the consulting company EDE, Eng. Perera backed the DPM Eng. Silva throughout the project feasibility and was aware that Eng. B Silva was developing an alternate design to the original design without the knowledge of the JHPPJv. However, within a month of the decision to study the alternate design, he retired from the company and another veteran in hydro power Eng. C Karunawardhana succeeded Eng. Perera. Eng. Karunawardhana soon took charge of the study along with Eng. Silva and other officers connected with the project and found that the alternative proposal was untenable. He soon informed this to the JHPP authorities and the project was back on track. By this time funding was channeled to some other project and it was only after few years in 2005 that the Sri Lankan Government was finally able to secure funding for the project. In the mean time an internal inquiry was carried out at EDE and DPM Eng. Silva was found to have used money from the project doing surveys etc. using JHPPJv money and his authority in the project without being noticed by the PM, to develop his pet project. JHPPJV thereafter informed the JHPP authorities that they were not taking any responsibility of the alternate proposal. In the mean time the Project Proponent (PP) in consultation of the JHPPJV jointly made a complaint to the IESL against Eng. Silva that he has violated the Code of Conduct of the IESL with several allegations. Among the facts they placed before the IESL for the consideration before taking disciplinary action are the following: a) Use of funds committed for a public project in an unauthorized manner thus committing misappropriation of funds. b) Use of resources of the JV including, vehicles, time of engineers, surveyors, and quantity surveyors, without proper authorization thus causing unnecessary expenditure which could have been used otherwise and would have caused quality control issues in the project study. c) Misrepresentation of facts to the superiors of the EDC and misleading the EDC management to get their support to his pet project. d) Causing the JV partners embarrassment and mistrust in the eyes of the Sri Lankan companies and their client thus losing their credibility as a reliable consulting consortium due to an involvement of the senior staff in a clandestine operation. e) Causing irreparable damage to the country's economy that would lead to the delay in implementation of the much needed project. Question: It is customary for IESL to first establish if there is a prima facie case (as the first impression or on the face of it) exists, based on the facts available to the IESL and any written explanation given by the member concerned. Assume this case has come to you for examination on behalf of the IESL. You are also required to formulate charges against Eng B Silva and recommend to the IESL if the IESL should proceed with the formal inquiry. Write a preliminary report after a) Verification if such allegations are valid or not you may either agree or disagree with all or some of the allegations against Eng. Silva brought up by the PP - you must highlight each of the major allegations and give your opinion with reasoning. b) Verification of the impact of the delay of the project by almost 5 years and to see if such an act amounts to violation of the Code of Conduct of an IESL member. c) Finding out the Violations of particular clauses in the Code of Conduct by Eng. Silva. d) Recommend any interim measure you may propose to the IESL. and PP in this regard. Please bear in mind that you are not a member of the disciplinary panel, you are only investigating based on facts available to you