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?
Subtopic: Case Study · probity in public procurement
How to structure your answer
Written within the word limit
271 words · target 250 words · 20 min
Facts and stakeholders
Rajesh, an Administrative Officer awaiting JAG promotion, faces a Rs 35-lakh stationery purchase from a single vendor favoured by his reporting boss. As per the GFR, expenditure above Rs 30 lakh needs the higher authority's sanction, but the office suggests splitting the order to bypass it—a practice against the rules. Stakeholders: Rajesh, his boss (who writes his ACR), the organisation, the exchequer, and audit.
(a) Options available to Rajesh
- Comply and split the expenditure to please the boss and protect his ACR—unethical and illegal, exposing him to audit and vigilance action.
- Refuse outright and confront the boss—principled but may trigger a poor ACR and career harm.
- Follow due process: process the full Rs 35-lakh estimate and route it for the higher authority's sanction, recording facts in writing.
(b) Ethical issues
- Integrity and probity versus career self-interest and fear of a poor ACR.
- Rule of law and financial propriety versus obedience to a superior's improper wish.
- Conflict of interest in favouring a particular vendor; risk of splitting to defeat financial controls.
- Moral courage versus conformity.
(c) Most appropriate option
Rajesh should process the full amount and place it for the competent authority's sanction, putting his reasoning on file and politely apprising his boss that splitting violates the GFR and invites audit objections. If pressured, he should seek written instructions. This upholds probity, protects him and the organisation, and demonstrates the moral courage expected of a public servant. A fair appraisal system should reward, not penalise, such integrity.
Conclusion
Career advancement bought by conniving at financial impropriety is fragile; probity anchored in the rules is the only durable foundation for a public servant.
What an examiner expects to see
- Splitting of expenditure to avoid higher sanction violates the General Financial Rules, 2017
- Core conflict: probity and financial propriety versus ACR-linked career self-interest
- Favouring a specified vendor raises conflict-of-interest and transparency concerns
- Best course: process the full Rs 35 lakh and route for competent authority's sanction, recorded in writing
- Seek written instructions if pressured; note the GFR breach and audit risk
- Demonstrates moral courage; a fair APAR system should reward integrity
- Complying would expose Rajesh to audit, vigilance and CVC scrutiny
Concrete cases, schemes and judgments
- General Financial Rules, 2017 barring splitting of demands to avoid sanction
- Central Vigilance Commission guidelines on procurement integrity
- Requirement to record reasons and seek written orders (CCS Conduct Rules)
- GeM (Government e-Marketplace) as a transparent procurement channel