GS4 2025 Q17 15 marks 250 words Case study - Procurement ethics

UPSC Mains 2025 GS4 Q17 — Case study - Procurement ethics

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? (Answer in 250 words)

Question Decoded — examiner's intent

Directive verbs
options availableethical issues involvedmost appropriate optionwhy
Scope keywords
splitting of expendituredelegated financial powersassessment by his superior officerGeneral Financial Rulesadverse notice of AuditJunior Administrative Gradelack of initiative
Implicit sub-parts
  • Examination of the 'career-ethical dilemma'—balancing career advancement (JAG promotion) against procedural integrity.
  • Critical analysis of the risks of splitting orders vs. the risks of seeking sanction from the higher authority.
  • Evaluation of the 'culture of convenience' (common practice) versus the rule of law (GFR).
  • Development of a mitigation strategy to handle the superior officer's potential displeasure while adhering to rules.
Common pitfalls
  • Failing to mention specific violations of the General Financial Rules (GFR) and the legal implications of 'splitting'.
  • Over-vilifying the boss without acknowledging the professional pressure Rajesh feels regarding his ACR/promotion.
  • Suggesting 'complaining to the Vigilance Department' immediately without exploring constructive dialogue or procedural compliance first.
  • Ignoring the 'efficiency' aspect—failing to explain how to get the stationery quickly while still following the law.
Dimensions required
Professional Integrity and ProbityInstitutional/Procedural (GFR Compliance)Psychological (Fear of career setback)Organizational Culture (Normalisation of deviance)Accountability and Audit Trail
Marks allocation hint

Allocate roughly 60 words to part (a) to concisely list 3-4 realistic options. Dedicate 70 words to part (b) identifying at least 4-5 core ethical conflicts. Use the remaining 120 words for part (c) to justify the chosen path using GFR principles and long-term career safety, ensuring the link between personal integrity and professional survival is clear.

Unlock the full analysis for this question

You've seen the question and its examiner-intent decoding. Subscribers also get:

  • 🔗 Similar Previous Year Questions — cross-year, cross-paper matches so you study the topic, not the question
  • 📚 Source Map — verified citations from Laxmikanth, NCERT, PRS, Yojana, Economic Survey, Spectrum
  • 🌱 How this topic is evolving — current-affairs bridge anchored to live TARS news clustering
  • 🧭 Examiner's Pattern — how the topic has been framed across every year UPSC has tested it
  • ✍️ Answer Skeleton — a structured outline (intro → body → conclusion) you can flesh out
  • 🎯 AI evaluation — write your answer, get rubric-based scoring from gs-eval

Or browse 132+ free preview questions across all years and papers — the first 3 questions of every paper are unlocked.

Ready to practice?

Subscribers can attempt this question in 250 words and get an instant, rubric-based evaluation showing where they stand.

Subscribe to evaluate your answer →