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?(Answer in 250 words)

Introduction

The case highlights an ethical dilemma involving professional integrity, adherence to rules, and career pressure. Rajesh, a Group A officer in a Public Sector Undertaking, faces a conflict

between complying with financial regulations and satisfying his reporting officer, whose appraisal

will directly influence his promotion. In public administration, financial decisions are not merely

procedural but reflect ethical governance, probity, and public trust. Hence, Rajesh must act in alignment with principles of transparency, accountability, and rule of law.

(a) Options Available to Rajesh

• Split the procurement order into smaller amounts to remain within his financial powers, following the prevailing informal but unethical practice.

• Seek approval from the competent higher authority as mandated under financial rules before proceeding with procurement.

• Discuss the issue with his superior and clearly explain the rule constraints while requesting formal directions.

• Ensure transparent procurement by adopting due process such as competitive bidding and proper documentation.

(b) Ethical Issues Involved

• Violation of Rules: Splitting expenditure to bypass sanction violates principles of financial propriety under General Financial Rules (GFR) and undermines rule-based governance.

• Integrity vs Career Pressure: Rajesh faces a moral conflict between maintaining integrity and securing favorable appraisal for career advancement.

• Transparency and Accountability: Such actions may invite audit objections, vigilance inquiries, and misuse of public funds.

• Organisational Ethical Culture: Acceptance of such practices leads to normalization of corruption and weakens institutional ethics.

• Public Trust: Misuse or manipulation of procedures erodes citizens’ confidence in public institutions.

(c) Most Appropriate Course of Action

Rajesh should strictly adhere to financial rules and seek approval from the competent authority

instead of resorting to splitting the purchase order. He should communicate transparently with his

superior, placing on record the relevant provisions and constraints. Proper documentation will ensure

accountability and protect him from future scrutiny. This approach aligns with Deontological ethics (duty-based adherence to rules) and upholds Nolan Principles such as Integrity, Objectivity, and Accountability. Ethical leaders like Lal Bahadur Shastri exemplified that personal

integrity must not be compromised even under pressure, reinforcing institutional credibility.

Conclusion

Adherence to financial propriety, transparency, and rule-based decision-making safeguards public

resources and strengthens governance. Ethical courage in resisting undue pressure not only protects

Rajesh from legal and professional risks but also contributes to building a culture of integrity

within the organization.