General Studies 2023 GS Paper IV 20 marks 250 words Compulsory Evaluate

Q7

You are working as an executive in a nationalised bank for several years. One day one of your close colleagues tells you that her father is suffering from heart disease and needs surgery immediately to survive. She also tells you that she has no insurance and the operation will cost about ₹ 10 lakh. You are also aware of the fact that her husband is no more and that she is from a lower middle class family. You are empathetic about her situation. However, apart from expressing your sympathy, you do not have the resources to fund her. A few weeks later, you ask her about the well-being of her father and she informs you about his successful surgery and that he is recovering. She then confides in you that the bank manager was kind enough to facilitate the release of ₹ 10 lakh from a dormant account of someone to pay for the operation with a promise that it should be confidential and be repaid at the earliest. She has already started paying it back and will continue to do so until it is all returned. (a) What are the ethical issues involved? (b) Evaluate the behaviour of the bank manager from an ethical point of view. (c) How would you react to the situation?

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

कई सालों से आप एक राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक में कार्यपालक के रूप में कार्य कर रहे हैं। एक दिन आपकी एक नजदीकी सहकर्मी ने आपको बताया कि उसके पिताजी दिल की बीमारी से पीड़ित हैं और उन्हें बचाने के लिए तुरंत ऑपरेशन की जरूरत है। उसने आपको यह भी बताया कि उसके पास कोई बीमा नहीं है और ऑपरेशन की लागत लगभग ₹ 10 लाख होगी। आप यह भी जानते हैं कि उसके पति नहीं रहे और वह निम्न-मध्यम-वर्ग परिवार से है। आप उसके हालात से सहानुभूति रखते हैं। हालांकि, सहानुभूति के अलावा आपके पास रकम देने के लिए संसाधन नहीं हैं। कुछ सप्ताह बाद, आप उसके पिताजी की कुशलता के बारे में पूछते हैं और वह आपको उनके ऑपरेशन की सफलता के बारे में सूचित करती है कि उन्हें स्वास्थ्य लाभ मिल रहा है। फिर उसने आपको गुप्त रूप से बताया कि बैंक मैनेजर इतने दयालु थे कि उन्होंने ₹ 10 लाख किसी के निष्क्रिय खाते से ऑपरेशन के लिए जारी कर दिए, इस वायदे के साथ कि यह गोपनीय होना चाहिए और जल्द-से-जल्द चुकाया जाए। उसने पहले ही रकम चुकाना शुरू कर दिया है और जब तक पूरी रकम चुकता नहीं हो जाती तब तक वह रकम भरती रहेगी। (a) इसमें कौन-से नैतिक मुद्दे शामिल हैं? (b) नैतिकता के नजरिए से बैंक मैनेजर के व्यवहार का मूल्यांकन कीजिए। (c) इस हालात में आपकी प्रतिक्रिया क्या होगी?

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 General Studies questions

Directive word: Evaluate

This question asks you to evaluate. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

The directive 'evaluate' in part (b) requires balanced judgment with evidence, while (a) demands analysis and (c) requires practical application. Structure: brief intro framing the ethical dilemma → part (a) identifying 3-4 ethical issues (~80 words) → part (b) evaluating manager's conduct using ethical frameworks (~90 words) → part (c) stating your response with justification (~60 words) → conclusion on systemic vs. individual ethics. Allocate roughly 35% to (a), 40% to (b), 25% to (c).

Key points expected

  • For (a): Identifies conflict between beneficence (saving life) and fiduciary duty; violation of banking ethics (RBI guidelines on dormant accounts); breach of trust/depositors' rights; precedent of moral hazard; tension between situational ethics and deontological duty
  • For (a): Recognizes stakeholder impact—depositor (if returns), bank integrity, public trust in nationalised banks, colleague's moral position
  • For (b): Evaluates manager using utilitarian lens (greatest good—life saved vs. institutional harm) AND deontological lens (duty-based: unauthorized use is wrong regardless of outcome); applies RBI's 'Master Direction on Depositor Education and Protection'
  • For (b): Assesses proportionality—manager had alternative options (bank staff welfare schemes, medical advance, transparent exceptional approval) that were bypassed
  • For (c): States clear personal response—reporting obligation under Prevention of Corruption Act/integrity pact vs. loyalty conflict; proposes constructive path (facilitating legitimate repayment, ensuring institutional accountability without punitive destruction)
  • For (c): Demonstrates administrative wisdom—balancing compassion with institutional integrity, suggesting systemic solutions (dormant account welfare fund, staff medical corpus)

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%4For (a), distinguishes multiple ethical issues without conflating them; for (b), 'evaluate' produces balanced judgment with criteria (not mere description); for (c), 'how would you react' yields actionable, ethically grounded response—not passive observationAddresses all parts but treats (b) as 'describe' or (c) as generic advice; some conflation between ethical issues and evaluationMisreads directive—treats entire question as 'discuss' or ignores evaluative/judgmental demands; misses one sub-part entirely
Content depth & accuracy20%4Accurately cites RBI regulations on dormant accounts (10+ years inoperative, transfer to DEAF fund); references Banking Regulation Act fiduciary duties; applies specific ethical theories (Kantian duty, utilitarianism, virtue ethics) appropriately to each partCorrect general understanding of banking ethics and moral philosophy but lacks specific regulatory knowledge; theories mentioned superficiallyFactual errors (e.g., claiming dormant accounts are bank property); confuses ethics with law or reduces to emotional appeal; no philosophical framework
Structure & flow20%4Clear tripartite structure with visible markers (a), (b), (c); logical progression from issue identification → evaluation → personal stance; within word limit with no abrupt truncation; integrated conclusion synthesizing all three partsAll parts present but uneven development—(c) rushed or (a) overextended; some organizational clarity but weak transitions between partsDisorganized—parts merged indistinguishably or one part dominates; exceeds word limit significantly or leaves (b)/(c) incomplete
Examples / case-law / data20%4Cites RBI Master Direction on Depositor Education and Protection Fund; references DEAF (Depositor Education and Awareness Fund) Scheme 2014; mentions relevant case law (Sarfaesi Act principles on creditor rights, or comparable banking ethics cases); optionally references staff welfare schemes in SBI/PNB as legitimate alternativeGeneric reference to 'banking rules' or 'RBI guidelines' without specificity; no case law; may cite personal experience or hypothetical precedentNo regulatory or legal reference; examples irrelevant (non-banking) or fabricated; confuses nationalised bank with private sector norms
Conclusion & analytical edge20%4Synthesizes tension between individual compassion and institutional integrity; proposes systemic reform (dedicated medical corpus, transparent hardship protocols) preventing recurrence; demonstrates 'administrative wisdom'—neither rigid legalism nor situational laxityRestates points without synthesis; conclusion merely summarizes; weak or missing reform suggestionNo conclusion; or purely emotional ending ('I would help my friend'); or rigid conclusion ignoring humanitarian dimension entirely

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →

More from General Studies 2023 GS Paper IV