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?
Approach · directive: “what / which”
What it asks · Lay out Rajesh’s options when his ACR-writing boss wants a ₹35 lakh purchase from one vendor that exceeds Rajesh’s powers, identify the ethical issues, and choose the right course.
The question has 3 parts — answer each
- (a) What options are available to Rajesh
- (b) What ethical issues the case involves
- (c) Which option is most appropriate for Rajesh, and why
Open with · GFR Rule 157 forbids splitting a demand to avoid a higher authority's sanction; the real test is whether anxiety about his ACR will override Rajesh's integrity.
Cover
- Issues: rule-bending (splitting orders) vs financial propriety; possible favouritism to one vendor; career self-interest vs integrity; fear of the reporting officer; a culture of shortcuts.
- Option 1 — split the order to stay within his powers: pleases the boss, but breaks rules, invites audit objection and personal liability.
- Option 2 — refuse outright: correct in law, but may look uncooperative, hurt his appraisal and leave the office’s real need unmet.
- Option 3 — process the full ₹35 lakh proposal and put it up to the boss for sanction, with competitive quotations or GeM purchase.
- Option 4 — report to vigilance at once: premature without evidence of wrongdoing, and damaging to trust.
- Best: Option 3 — explain the rule respectfully, note that splitting draws audit objections, seek sanction, and buy through GeM or open tender.
- Why: it meets the need, protects both officers and upholds financial propriety; a good ACR earned by breaking rules is not worth the risk.
Close with · Rules, not fear, should decide: a transparent process protects the organisation, the boss and Rajesh's own career better than any shortcut, and sets the standard for his staff.
Add value (verified)
- GFR 2017, Rule 157: a demand must not be split into small piecemeal purchases to avoid the sanction of higher authority. General Financial Rules 2017 (updated), Rule 157 — dgma.gov.in ↗“Rule 157 A demand for goods should not be divided into small quantities to make piecemeal purchases to avoid the necessity of obtaining the sanction of higher authority required with reference to the estimated value of the total demand”
- GFR 2017, Rule 144: procurement must bring efficiency, economy and transparency, fair treatment of suppliers and competition. General Financial Rules 2017 (updated), Rule 144 — dgma.gov.in ↗“Rule 144 Fundamental principles of public buying (for all procurements including procurement of works). Every authority delegated with the financial powers of procuring goods in public interest shall have the responsibility and accountability to bring efficiency, economy, and transparency in matters relating to public procurement and for fair and equitable treatment of suppliers and promotion of competition in public procurement.”
- CCS (Conduct) Rules, Rule 3(2)(iv): a government servant who receives an oral direction from a superior shall seek its confirmation in writing as early as possible. Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, Rule 3(2) — DoPT ↗“(iv) A Government servant who has received oral direction from his official superior shall seek confirmation of the same in writing as early as possible, whereupon it shall be the duty of the official superior to confirm the direction in writing.”
- Kant's categorical imperative (preliminary formulation): act only on a maxim one could will to become a universal law. Kant's Moral Philosophy — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ↗““I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (G 4:402).”
- 2nd ARC (Ethics in Governance, para 6.8.5): internal reviews of prices paid for stationery, computer accessories and other purchases by field offices. 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission, 4th Report: Ethics in Governance (2007), para 6.8.5 — DARPG (archived) ↗“6.8.5 Reviews/checks could be conducted internally for information relating to price paid for a wide range of purchases made by different field departments, local bodies and parastatals for stationery, computer accessories and office equipment”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2025, GS Paper IV — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 1 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 387 words (UPSC limit 250) · Minimalist IAS
The General Financial Rules are blunt: a demand "should not be divided into small quantities" to avoid a higher authority's sanction. The real test is whether ACR anxiety will override Rajesh's integrity.
Stakeholders
- Affected: Rajesh, his reporting officer, the PSU's public money, rival vendors, the dealing staff and audit.
(a) Options available to Rajesh
- Option 1: split the ₹35 lakh order into smaller ones within his own powers.
- Option 2: refuse the purchase outright.
- Option 3: process one proposal, put it to the boss for sanction, and buy through GeM or competitive bids.
- Option 4: report the matter to vigilance at once.
(b) Ethical issues involved
- Financial propriety vs expediency: splitting to evade sanction breaks GFR Rule 157 and invites audit objection and personal liability.
- Fairness and competition: the GFR demand efficiency, economy, transparency and "fair and equitable treatment of suppliers"; a pre-chosen vendor fails that test.
- Career vs integrity: fear of the ACR-writing officer tests his courage of conviction.
- Normalised wrongdoing: "common practice" is no defence; by Kant's universal-law test, if every officer split orders, delegated limits would mean nothing.
- Accountability: Rajesh signs the orders; "the boss wanted it" will not protect him.
(c) Most appropriate option and why
| Option | Merit | Flaw |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Split order | Pleases boss | Unlawful; audit risk |
| 2. Refuse outright | Lawful | Need unmet; confrontational |
| 3. One proposal for sanction | Lawful; need met | Boss may be displeased |
- Option 4 is premature without evidence of mala fide; keep it in reserve.
- Option 3 is best: explain respectfully that sanction lies with the next authority and that splitting draws audit objection; put a note on file; buy through GeM or open bids.
- Put it in writing: the CCS (Conduct) Rules, the model for government servants, require them to seek written confirmation of an oral direction "as early as possible"; Rajesh should follow the same practice.
- Why: it meets the office's need, protects both officers and upholds the rules; a good ACR earned by breaking them is worthless.
Systemic fix
- Prevent recurrence: an annual procurement plan, e-procurement by default, the 2nd ARC's internal checks on prices paid for stationery and computer accessories, and more than one reviewer in appraisals.
Rules, not fear, should decide: a transparent process protects the organisation, the boss and Rajesh's own career better than any shortcut, and sets the standard for his staff.
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.