Q. 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 Mains 2025 GS4 Paper
Model Answer:
(a) Options Available to Rajesh:
Rajesh faces a critical decision with four possible paths:
Option 1: Comply with splitting practice – Divide Rs 35 lakh order into smaller bills below Rs 30 lakhs (like Rs 20+15 lakhs)
Option 2: Direct refusal – Send file to superior for proper sanction, citing GFR rules
Option 3: Persuasive approach – Meet boss personally, explain audit risks, and suggest legitimate processing while ensuring priority execution
Option 4: Whistleblowing – Report to vigilance/higher authorities
b) Ethical Issues Involved:
The case presents multiple ethical dilemmas. ntegrity vs Career advancement creates personal conflict where promotion prospects clash with rule compliance. The rule of law vs organizational culture highlights tension between GFR provisions and informal practices.
Key concerns include:
• Conflict of interest – Specific vendor preference raises questions
• Public accountability – PSU funds require transparent usage (like CAG audit compliance)
• Moral courage – Standing for principles despite hierarchical pressure
• Setting precedent – Junior staff watching senior’s actions
c) Most Appropriate Option:
Option 3 (Persuasive approach) is optimal because it balances ethical integrity with practical wisdom.
This approach demonstrates emotional intelligence by reframing compliance as protecting both department and superior from audit complications. Rather than confrontation, Rajesh becomes a solution-provider by suggesting legitimate alternatives like emergency procurement provisions or phased purchasing with proper documentation.
This option upholds public service values while maintaining professional relationships. It shows leadership qualities essential for JAG promotion – problem-solving over rule-bending. By documenting discussions and keeping file notings clear, Rajesh protects himself legally while educating his superior about risks.
Long-term career built on integrity surpasses short-term gains through compromises. One adverse audit can destroy reputation permanently (like coal scam fallout).
Conclusion: True administrative excellence lies in achieving objectives within legal framework, not circumventing it.
