You have just been appointed as Additional Director General of Central Public Works Department. The Chief Architect of your division, who is to retire in six months, is passionately working on a very important project, the successful completion of which would earn him a lasting reputation for the rest of his life.
A new lady architect, Seema, trained at Manchester School of Architecture, UK joined as Senior Architect in your division. During the briefing about the project, Seema made some suggestions which would not only add value to the project, but would also reduce completion time. This has made the Chief Architect insecure and he is constantly worried that all the credit will go to her. Subsequently, he adopted a passive and aggressive behaviour towards her and has become disrespectful to her. Seema felt it embarrassing as the Chief Architect left no chance of humiliating her. He would very often correct her in front of other colleagues and raise his voice while speaking to her. This continuous harassment has resulted in her losing confidence and self-esteem. She felt perpetually tensed, anxious and stressed. She appeared to be in awe of him since he has had a long tenure in the office and has vast experience in the area of her work.
You are aware of her outstanding academic credentials and career record in her previous organisations. However, you fear that this harassment may result in compromising her much needed contribution in this important project and may adversely impact her emotional well-being. You have also come to know from her peers that she is contemplating tendering her resignation.
(a) What are the ethical issues involved in the above case? (b) What are the options available to you in order to complete the project as well as to retain Seema in the organization? (c) What would be your response to Seema’s predicament? What measures would you institute to prevent such occurrences from happening in your organization?
Approach · directive: “what”
What it asks · (a) Identify the ethical issues in the Chief Architect's conduct and the project's needs; (b) list options that deliver the project and keep Seema; (c) state my response and the preventive measures.
The question has 3 parts — answer each
- (a) Identify the ethical issues in the case
- (b) Set out the options to complete the project and retain Seema
- (c) State my response to Seema's predicament and the measures to prevent recurrence
Open with · ILO Convention No. 190 (2019) was the first treaty to recognise everyone's right to a world of work free from violence and harassment; Seema's case shows the project and her dignity stand or fall together.
Cover
- Stakeholders: Seema, the Chief Architect, me as Additional Director General, the project team, the department and the public who will use the project.
- (a) Issues: harassment and loss of dignity, abuse of seniority, insecurity over credit, merit versus seniority, and gender insensitivity; my duty to protect Seema while being fair to a retiring Chief Architect.
- (b) Wait and watch: keeps peace but risks Seema's resignation and continued harm. Formal disciplinary action: firm, but may derail the project, and no complaint has been made.
- (b) Option 3, private counselling of the Chief Architect: acknowledge his contribution, assure joint credit, set clear limits on conduct and warn of consequences if it continues.
- (b) Option 4, restructure work: give Seema a defined module with her role recorded in project documents, hold review meetings chaired by me, and provide mentoring.
- (c) Response: meet Seema first with empathy, assure protection without pressure, offer counselling and a formal complaint route, and keep the confidence she shares.
- (c) Prevention: a workplace conduct code, sensitisation and emotional-intelligence training for supervisors, a grievance cell with anonymous reporting, and credit-sharing norms in project reports.
Close with · Firm on conduct, fair to the veteran and protective of the newcomer: this completes the project and keeps Seema; a code that bars bullying prevents the next case.
Add value (verified)
- ILO Convention No. 190 (C190), adopted in June 2019, is the first international treaty to recognise the right of everyone to a world of work free from violence and harassment. Violence and harassment in the world of work — International Labour Organization ↗“Adopted in June 2019 ILO Convention No. 190 (C190) is the first international treaty to recognize the right of everyone to a world of work free from violence and harassment, including gender-based violence and harassment.”
- Rule 3A of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964: no government servant shall act in a discourteous manner in the performance of official duties. Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (updated to 31.12.2014) — Department of Personnel and Training ↗“3A. Promptness and Courtesy No Government servant shall (a) in the performance of his official duties, act in a discourteous manner;”
- The iGOT Karmayogi platform hosts over 4,200 courses across domain, functional and behavioural competencies (February 2026). iGOT Karmayogi platform — PIB, Ministry of Personnel (Parliament reply, 5 February 2026) ↗“As on date, more than 1.48 crore users have been onboarded, and the platform hosts over 4200 courses across domain, functional and behavioural competencies”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2023, GS Paper IV — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 1 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 375 words (UPSC limit 250) · Minimalist IAS
Adopted in 2019, ILO Convention No. 190 was the first international treaty to recognise everyone's right to a world of work free from violence and harassment. Seema's case shows that the project and her dignity stand or fall together.
Stakeholders
- People involved: Seema; the Chief Architect; I, as Additional Director General; the project team; the CPWD; and the public who will use the building.
(a) Ethical issues involved
- Dignity: Kant held that human beings possess dignity; repeated public humiliation denies it and harms her mental well-being.
- Abuse of seniority: experience used to dominate rather than mentor, in a passive-aggressive style that leaves no formal trail.
- Credit versus merit: his insecurity is unfair to ideas that add value and save time.
- Breach of conduct: the CCS (Conduct) Rules bar a government servant from acting in a discourteous manner in official duties (Rule 3A).
- Duty of care: public correction aimed at a new woman officer, colleagues' silence, and my dilemma: fairness to a retiring veteran versus protecting a newcomer.
(b) Options to complete the project and retain Seema
| Option | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|
| Wait and watch | Avoids friction | Seema may resign |
| Formal disciplinary action | Signals zero tolerance | No complaint yet; project disrupted |
| Counsel and restructure | Quick, face-saving | Needs his cooperation |
- Counsel the Chief Architect privately: acknowledge his contribution, assure shared credit, set explicit limits on conduct and warn of formal consequences.
- Restructure the work: give Seema a defined module with her role recorded in project documents, and hold joint design reviews chaired by me.
- Move Seema elsewhere: punishes the victim and loses her contribution. Rejected.
(c) My response and measures to prevent recurrence
- Response: meet Seema with empathy, assure protection without pressure, offer counselling and the complaint route, and ask her to stay; then combine counselling with restructuring.
- Prevention: a code against bullying and incivility; a confidential grievance cell; credit-sharing norms in project reports; anonymous team-climate surveys; and courses in behavioural competencies for supervisors on the iGOT Karmayogi platform.
Firm on conduct, fair to the veteran and protective of the newcomer: this completes the project and keeps Seema. A department that writes C190's promise of a harassment-free workplace into its own code prevents the next case.
Written by Minimalist IAS from facts checked at source (how we verify) — a little fuller than exam length, so every part of the question is covered; in the hall, keep the structure and trim the detail. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.