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.

How a topper answered the closest question

Toppers wrote this one in a test series: “Rajesh is a dedicated and upright IAS officer who has recently been posted as the Commissioner of a major city's Municipal Corporation after serving diligently in various assignments for over a decade. This is his fifth transfer in four years, mostly due to his refusal to bend rules for influential people. His colleagues admire his integrity, discipline, and commitment to public service. The mayor of the city, a senior leader of the ruling party, holds significant power over the corporation's functioning. Rajesh soon learns about several dubious tenders and large-scale irregularities in awarding contracts for the city's solid waste management project. He notices that payments have been hastily cleared to companies with questionable credentials, despite glaring deficiencies in their work. One day, a senior councillor belonging to a rival political party approaches Rajesh and shares a set of audio recordings and internal emails that purportedly show the mayor asking for kickbacks from contractors in exchange for lucrative garbage collection contracts. Rajesh also recalls the same contractors' payments being pushed through under the mayor's orders, bypassing due process. When Rajesh asks the Councillor why he doesn't bring this evidence to the media or the anti-corruption bureau himself, the Councillor shrugs it off, hinting that his hands are tied politically but Rajesh can "earn a hero's image" by blowing the whistle. He subtly promises that if his party comes to power in the upcoming municipal elections, Rajesh's loyalty will be rewarded with an important posting and career security. Meanwhile, local media has started sniffing around the irregularities, and Rajesh's silence could make him appear complicit. His own staff is divided; some urge him to maintain the status quo for personal safety, while a few junior officers privately want him to act boldly and clean up the system. Adding to his dilemma, Rajesh's elderly parents are dependent on him, and another sudden transfer could make their care difficult. (a) Identify the key ethical dilemmas faced by Rajesh in this situation. (b) What are the options available to Rajesh to deal with the situation? Evaluate each option with its merits and demerits. (c) In the context of this case, discuss the ethical challenges of whistleblowing for public servants in India. (d) What institutional reforms can strengthen ethical conduct and protect honest officers?”

Toppers’ answers to other close questions

• ABC Ltd is a leading Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) of the country. You have been newly appointed as the Assistant Director (Administration) responsible for the overall management of the internal affairs of the enterprise. One day you get requests from two Officers serving in your department about giving them postings at places different from where they have been recently transferred. The rules stipulate that the individual requests are not to be entertained for postings except under two circumstances- the first being when the Officer has already served for more than three years at the same station, and the second when the Officer is faced with some genuine exigency justifying his request. The Director (Administration) has the final say in such cases. The concerned officials approach you in the matter and apprise you of their problems. One of the officers, Officer X, claims to be close to the Director, and says that he wants the posting of choice because he feels that the place where he has been transferred is not 'suitable enough'. He even subtly hints that in case his request is not accepted, he will approach the Director and inform him about your 'inappropriate behavior'. The second officer, Officer Y, informs you of the deteriorating health of his mother and produces a number of medical records to back his claims. He requests for leniency on the ground of his mother's ill health since he being the only child is responsible for the upkeep of his aged, widowed mother. (a) How do you plan to handle the cases of the two officials? (b) Give suitable logic for your course of action.1 answer
• Mr. A is a senior public servant who has worked in two State public service departments over a twenty-year period. In the course of performing his duties, involving primarily monetary and budgeting issues, Mr.A becomes aware that public revenue is being used inappropriately. While he is not directly responsible for this aspect of the budget, he raised his concerns about the channelling of funds from one part of the budget to another to Mr.B, the Head of Division. Mr.A learns that not only is Mr.B aware of this practice, but also that he condones it. Not long after, Mr.A is summoned to talk to Mr.B and to the Director-General about the issue. Due to the politically sensitive nature of the issue, Mr.A is told that the matter is not within his jurisdiction and therefore he should 'keep his nose out of it'. This advice is based on the fact that the incumbent government will not tolerate questions about how it puts its budget together but that it also faces electoral defeat if the matter were to be made 'public'. After much soul searching, Mr.A decides to obey his supervisors by leaving the matter alone. (a) Discuss the possible reasons behind Mr.A decision. (b) Suppose you were Mr.A then what possible options you could have taken? Discuss their merits and demerits and suggest the best course of action, giving reasons.1 answer
• You have recently started working at your dream company. You have been hired in the strategies department along with two other new joiners. All of you have just graduated out of college. You have very friendly relations with your co-joiners. The three of you have been helping each other at work. The experience of working together has built strong camaraderie between the three of you. Your boss has publicly appreciated the strong team-spirit displayed by you and your colleagues. At the annual review, you have been given a higher pay raise, and a more lucrative job profile. The promotion doesn't come as a surprise to you. You have worked beyond office hours more as a rule rather than as an exception. The project you worked on was adjudged 'the best project of the year in business impact' at the annual corporate awards. One of your co-joiners remarks, in presumably good humor, that you should suggest to your boss to allocate similar high impact projects to your friends as well. You also perceive suggestions towards the shared surname being the reason for special affinity of your boss towards you, indicating the fact that your boss and you have the same caste. You feel hurt but you also try to think about the remarks with an open mind. You assess that the three of you have indeed worked hard with sincerity. One of your friends, in fact, worked very efficiently despite a personal tragedy at home. There was already a salary differential between you and your colleagues based on the pedigree of your college. The higher pay raise to you has expanded the differential pay structure further. You always considered the initial pay differential to be against the principle of equal pay for equal work. But now you feel your friends may not have been given equal opportunities as well. a) You are inclined to the belief that the efforts and talent of your colleagues have been under-appreciated and you start feeling guilty about your promotion. b) Based on the given information, discuss the options that are available to you for addressing the guilt. What are the merits and demerits of those choices? Which option would you choose? Justify.1 answer