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.
It asks 3 things — 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 · The value conflict: fairness to a retiring veteran versus protection of a harassed newcomer, as the project's success and Seema's dignity stand or fall together; then the stakeholders and their stakes.
Cover
- Stakeholders: Seema, the Chief Architect, I as Additional Director General, the team, the CPWD and the public, each with its stake.
- (a) Issues: dignity v. hierarchy (ILO Convention No. 190), mentorship v. domination, merit v. insecurity, courtesy under CCS Rule 3A, fairness v. protection.
- (b) Merits–demerits table: wait and watch, formal disciplinary action, or counsel and restructure; moving Seema is rejected as punishing the victim.
- (c) At once, I meet Seema with empathy; then counsel the Chief Architect, record her role and chair joint reviews; why: empathy, fairness, accountability.
- Long-term measures: an anti-bullying code, a confidential grievance cell, credit-sharing norms, climate surveys and iGOT Karmayogi behavioural courses for supervisors.
Close with · A department that is firm on conduct, fair to its veterans and protective of its newcomers completes its projects and keeps its best talent.
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· 368words · Minimalist IAS
Fairness to a retiring veteran versus protection of a harassed newcomer: the project's success and Seema's dignity now stand or fall together.
Stakeholders: Seema (dignity, career); the Chief Architect (legacy, credit); I, as Additional Director General (duty of care, delivery); the team (work climate); the CPWD (talent, reputation); the public (a good building, on time).
(a) Ethical issues involved
- Dignity v. hierarchy: repeated public humiliation denies her dignity and harms her mental health; ILO Convention No. 190 (2019) was the first treaty to recognise everyone's right to a world of work free from violence and harassment.
- Mentorship v. domination: experience used to dominate rather than mentor, in a passive-aggressive style that leaves no formal trail.
- Merit v. insecurity: his fear over credit is unfair to ideas that add value and save time.
- Courtesy as a rule: the CCS (Conduct) Rules bar a government servant from acting "in a discourteous manner" in official duties (Rule 3A).
- Fairness v. protection: my own dilemma: fairness to a retiring veteran against protecting a newcomer.
(b) Options to complete the project and retain Seema
| Option | Merits | Demerits |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
- Move Seema elsewhere: punishes the victim and loses her contribution; rejected.
(c) My response to Seema's predicament, and measures to prevent recurrence
- At once: I would meet Seema with empathy, assure protection without pressure, offer counselling and the complaint route, and ask her to stay.
- Then: counsel the Chief Architect privately: acknowledge his contribution, assure shared credit, set explicit limits on conduct and warn of formal consequences. Give Seema a defined module, record her role in project documents, and chair joint design reviews myself.
- Why: empathy and justice for Seema, fairness to a veteran near retirement, and accountability for delivery; acting early protects all three.
- Long-term measures: a code against bullying and incivility; a confidential grievance cell; credit-sharing norms in project reports; anonymous team-climate surveys; and behavioural-competency courses for supervisors on the iGOT Karmayogi platform.
A department that is firm on conduct, fair to its veterans and protective of its newcomers completes its projects and keeps its best talent.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 1 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
