Rajesh is a Group A officer with nine years of service. He is posted as Administrative Officer in an Oil Public Sector undertaking. As an Administrative Officer he is responsible for managing and coordinating various administrative tasks to ensure sm

Question

Rajesh is a Group A officer with nine years of service. He is posted as Administrative Officer in an Oil Public Sector undertaking. As an Administrative Officer he is responsible for managing and coordinating various administrative tasks to ensure smooth functioning of office. He also manages office supplies, equipment etc.

Rajesh is now sufficient senior and is expecting his next promotion in JAG (Junior Administrative Grade) in the next one or two years. He knows that promotion is based on examination of ACRs/Performance Appraisal of last few years (5 years or so) of an officer by a DPC (Departmental Promotion Committee) and an officer lacking requisite grading of ACRs may not be found fit for promotion. Consequences of losing promotion may entail financial and reputational loss and set-back for career progression. Though he also puts his best efforts in official discharge of his duties, yet he is unsure of assessment by his superior officer. He is now putting extra efforts so that he gets thumping report at the end of financial year.

As Administrative Officer, Rajesh is regularly interacting with his immediate boss, who is his reporting officer for writing his ACR. One day he calls Rajesh and wants him to buy computer-related stationery on priority from a particular vendor. Rajesh instructs his office to initiate action for procuring these items. During the day, the dealing Assistant brings an estimate of Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs covering all stationery items from the same vendor. It is noticed that as per delegated financial powers, as provided in the GFR (General Financial Rules) as applicable in that Organisation, expenditure for office items exceeding Rupees Thirty Lakhs requires sanction of the next higher authority (boss in the present case). Rajesh knows that immediate superior would expect all these purchases should be done at his level and may not appreciate such lack of initiative on his part. During discussions with office, he learns that common practice of splitting of expenditure (where large order is divided into a series of smaller ones) is followed to avoid obtaining sanction from higher authority. This practice is against the rules and may come to the adverse notice of Audit.

Rajesh is perturbed. He is unsure of taking decision in the matter.

(a) What are the options available with Rajesh in the above situation?

(b) What are the ethical issues involved in this case?

(c) Which would be the most appropriate option for Rajesh and why?

UPSC Answer Check · Accepted Answer

Analyse the ethical dilemma by first identifying Rajesh's options in part (a) with their consequences, then dissecting the ethical issues in part (b) using ethical frameworks, and finally justifying the most appropriate course in part (c). Allocate approximately 35% words to (a) for comprehensive option-mapping, 30% to (b) for multi-layered ethical analysis, and 35% to (c) for reasoned decision-making with practical implementation steps.
- Part (a): Options include—(i) splitting expenditure to bypass higher sanction, (ii) seeking explicit written direction from superior for record, (iii) requesting superior to directly sanction as per GFR powers, (iv) seeking vigilance/integrity helpline guidance, (v) documenting objection and proceeding only with formal approval
- Part (b): Ethical issues—conflict between personal career interest (ACR pressure) and public interest; violation of GFR 2017 Rule 23 on splitting of purchases; compromise of integrity and objectivity under CCS Conduct Rules; erosion of rule of law through administrative convenience; fiduciary duty vs loyalty to superior
- Part (b): Deeper analysis using framework—teleological vs deontological ethics; utilitarian calculus of harm (financial loss, audit objection, personal guilt) vs benefit (promotion); virtue ethics of courage and integrity; Nolan Committee principles of selflessness and integrity
- Part (c): Most appropriate option—seeking superior's formal sanction with documented communication, or if refused, escalating through proper channel with record; NOT splitting expenditure; balancing assertive communication with institutional loyalty
- Part (c): Justification anchored in—GFR 2017 provisions on financial powers; Prevention of Corruption Act implications of abetment; Supreme Court precedents on vicarious liability of superior officers; long-term career protection through integrity
- Cross-cutting: Recognition that 'common practice' does not legalise violation; distinction between efficiency and illegality; emotional intelligence in managing superior without insubordination

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	4	Demonstrates precise grasp that 'analyse' requires deconstruction of the dilemma into constituent ethical tensions, not mere description; for (a) distinguishes viable from non-viable options with consequence-mapping; for (b) moves beyond listing to examining interconnections between personal, institutional and systemic ethics; for (c) recognises 'most appropriate' demands normative judgment with implementation pathway	Addresses all three parts but treats them as separate descriptive exercises; lists options and issues without analytical depth; provides a recommended option but justification remains superficial or principle-heavy without situational application	Misreads directive as 'describe' or 'list'; omits one sub-part entirely; conflates ethical issues with legal provisions without ethical analysis; recommendation lacks reasoning or selects clearly illegal option
Content depth & accuracy	20%	4	Accurately cites GFR 2017 provisions on delegated financial powers and splitting of expenditure; references CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 (Rules 3, 4 on integrity and devotion to duty); incorporates Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 Section 7/13 on criminal misconduct; uses ethical frameworks (Kohlberg, utilitarianism, virtue ethics) appropriately; demonstrates awareness of DPC functioning and ACR process	Mentions GFR and CCS Rules generically without specific rule numbers; identifies ethical issues as 'corruption' and 'pressure' without framework application; understands splitting is wrong but cannot articulate precise legal/ethical basis; basic grasp of ACR-DPC mechanism	Fundamental errors like claiming splitting is permissible with superior's oral approval; conflates ACR with annual confidential report mechanics; misstates financial powers threshold; attributes GFR provisions to CVC or CAG incorrectly; ethical analysis limited to 'honesty is good'
Structure & flow	20%	4	Clear tripartite structure with visible (a), (b), (c) demarcation; within (a) options presented with pros/cons matrix or systematic enumeration; (b) progresses from individual to institutional to systemic ethics; (c) states choice upfront then layers justification from legal, ethical and practical angles; seamless transitions between parts with cross-referencing	All three parts present but boundaries blurred; options in (a) run together without clear separation; ethical issues in (b) as bullet list without thematic grouping; conclusion in (c) stated but reasoning scattered; readable but requires examiner effort to follow logic	Disorganised response mixing parts randomly; no visible structure; jumps from option to ethical issue to personal opinion without coherence; incomplete—one or more parts substantially missing or merged indistinguishably
Examples / case-law / data	20%	4	Cites relevant precedents—Vineet Narain v. Union of India (CVC direction importance); Common Cause v. Union of India (public procurement integrity); references CVC guidelines on splitting of purchases; mentions 2nd ARC recommendations on civil service neutrality; uses comparable case studies like coal block allocation or Delhi excise policy on procedural shortcuts; cites Nolan Committee Seven Principles of Public Life	Generic reference to 'Supreme Court judgments on corruption' without naming; mentions CVC or CAG in passing without specific guideline; uses personal anecdote or hypothetical parallel instead of documented case; 2nd ARC cited but chapter unspecified	No external reference whatsoever; or irrelevant examples (private sector corporate governance, foreign examples without adaptation); misattributes cases (e.g., citing Vishaka guidelines for procurement); fabricated case names or provisions
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	4	Synthesises that ethical administration requires 'principled refusal' with constructive engagement—not passive resistance or complicity; recognises systemic issue of ACR subjectivity needing reform (2nd ARC, PAR committee recommendations); proposes institutional safeguards like procurement automation, e-tendering, ACR anonymisation; demonstrates mature understanding that short-term career risk pales against integrity capital and legal jeopardy; ends with actionable wisdom	States Rajesh should 'be honest' or 'follow rules' without addressing the power asymmetry; conclusion restates chosen option without broader insight; recognises problem is 'difficult' but offers no systemic reflection; ends abruptly without synthesis	Concludes with fatalistic 'do what superior says' or naive 'report to vigilance immediately' ignoring career context; or recommends illegal splitting with rationalisation; no conclusion; or conclusion contradicts analysis provided

Q10

Directive word: Analyse

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

Key points expected

Evaluation rubric

Practice this exact question

More from General Studies 2025 GS Paper IV