After the article is published next morning in The Pluralist, it goes viral. However, the mining company pushes back with a public declaration, contesting some of the findings of the article. While the potential inaccuracies do not entirely invalidate the article, they substantially undermine its message if proven true.

When Ramya asks Aditya Swaroop to bring in further proof to publish a rebuttal, he informs her that his sources, for a vital part of the article, were two employees recently fired by the mining company. And, they now admit that they were not completely honest in their initial interaction with him. Though some points raised in the article might still be valid, it is difficult to separate the inaccuracies given the unreliability of the sources. Ramya immediately brings it to the attention of Zubin, while admitting that she hastily permitted the publication of the article.

What is the MOST responsible action should Zubin take, keeping in view the recent developments due to the inaccuracies of the article?

We are essentially presented with a situation in which the article published is not entirely true and is raised in question. Although we have a reputation for higher reporting standards and not sensationalizing news, this poses a risk to the paper's reputation. 

Of the given options, we can eliminate C, as it simply assigns the blame to the people reporting. This does not help in any way. It does not matter who provided the information since we were publishing it; it was our responsibility to verify it. 

Option D is not only unethical (since nothing like this happened) but also against shifting the blame, and it is not a viable solution. 

Option E is also irrelevant, caimsing their journalist to be good at its work doe snot refute the accusations, additionally, does not make a change in public opinion and the mining company's position. 

The only way out of this is to accept responsibility for the error, leaving us with options A and B. 

Option B is not entirely incorrect. In case of an actual oversight from the reporter, the institute should consider firing the reporter since it is detrimental to the organisation. Here however, Aditya was not at fault, it was the employees that gave incorrect information. 

Option A is a better approach. Ramys accepts her haste in publishing the article, and as the editor's head, she also has some responsibility for the flat. 

Hence, Option A is the correct answer.