
Kalam IAS Academy was founded by a team of committed individuals who believe that the traditional way of UPSC preparation needs to be changed.
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?
This case presents a rules-based governance dilemma where Rajesh’s fear of an unfavourable ACR collides with his duty to uphold financial propriety. His decision must rest on integrity, accountability, and adherence to General Financial Rules while resisting personal and hierarchical pressures.
Rajesh,
Immediate superior (reporting officer),
Higher sanctioning authority,
PSU audit and vigilance bodies,
Public exchequer (taxpayers),
Vendors and competitors,
Departmental Promotion Committee.
Option 1: Split the Rs. 35 lakh order into smaller parts to stay within his financial limit.
Option 2: Send the full estimate for approval to the competent authority as mandated by GFR.
Option 3: Discuss the rule constraints with his superior, explain the GFR requirement, and seek sanction formally while ensuring transparency.
Conflict of Interest
His desire for a favourable ACR may compromise his judgment.
Financial Propriety and Rule-based Governance
Splitting expenditure to bypass sanction violates GFR and amounts to corrupt practice, as described by the teacher.
Transparency and Accountability
Manipulating numbers undermines audit credibility and misuses public funds.
Integrity and Courage of Conviction
Rajesh must choose between ethical conduct and fear of disappointing his superior.
Abuse of Delegated Power
Bypassing procedures distorts due process and harms institutional trust.
Option 3 is the most ethical and sustainable choice.
Rajesh should communicate clearly with his superior, cite the GFR provision, document the process, and forward the proposal for proper sanction. This course of action:
Upholds financial propriety and the rule of law
Prevents audit objections and legal vulnerability
Preserves organisational transparency
Demonstrates professional integrity despite personal career anxieties
Short-term discomfort is outweighed by long-term credibility and ethical leadership.
Ethical public administration requires firmness in following rules even when personal incentives push otherwise. Rajesh’s integrity, adherence to financial norms, and transparent communication protect both the PSU and his own career. Promotions may be uncertain—but ethical conduct must remain non-negotiable.
Watch the full discussion by Piyush Kumar Sinha Sir on Ethics Edge Series – Click here