Seema is a senior bureaucrat with a reputation of honesty and professional efficiency. She has recently been posted as the District Collector (DC) to Surinder Nagar, where a large industrial area is being established. The new industrial area had caused many farmers to submit applications for change of land use (CLU) to convert their farmlands into residential areas. There is an unusually large backlog of these applications awaiting processing. Seema noticed that some applications had been approved selectively with no visible chronological pattern. The case files showed a few complaints of some approvals being subject to receipt of large bribes from the applicants. On further fact-finding, Seema realized that a small group of touts was controlling this illegal activity through some subordinate officials in the Collectorate. This had created a fear in the other employees who were reluctant to process any application. The resultant backlog has been piling up thereby hindering local economic progress and causing public dissatisfaction. Seema was faced with a major moral and administrative challenge of dismantling this corruption network without hampering daily administrative operations. An aggressive internal investigation would result in institutional resistance and, possibly, a backlash from labour unions. Conversely, ignoring this situation would encourage the wrongdoers and unnecessarily continue this avoidable harassment to the populace. (a) What are the ethical issues involved in this case? (b) Discuss the options open to Seema. Identify the recommended option and justify it.
GS420 Marks2026Model answer
Introduction
Seema, as District Collector, faces a complex interplay of ethical (integrity, duty, impartiality) and administrative (continuity, rule of law, public service delivery) obligations. The situation — selective approvals of CLU, bribery, a tout-network using subordinate officials, staff fear and backlog — threatens public trust, economic progress and rule-bound governance. The task requires a response that is legally sound, ethically principled and operationally prudent.
Value Addition Block — Quick response framework
(a) Ethical issues involved
- Corruption and abuse of power — bribery undermines fairness and rule of law.
- Breach of public trust — selective approvals violate citizens’ expectation of impartial administration.
- Complicity and criminality — subordinate officials and touts facilitate illegal gain.
- Neglect of duty / administrative paralysis — fear-induced inaction impedes public service delivery.
- Whistleblower protection dilemma — employees fear reprisals; duty to protect them conflicts with exposing wrongdoers.
- Distributive injustice — backlog harms citizens and local economy, violating principles of equity and legitimate expectations.
- Conflict between prudence and courage — risk of backlash vs. moral imperative to act.
(b) Options open to Seema
- Option 1 — Ignore / tolerate the malpractice to avoid disruption (unethical, erodes legitimacy).
- Option 2 — Aggressive public crackdown immediately (visible action but risks institutional resistance, strikes, disruption of services, possible legal procedural lapses).
- Option 3 — Refer immediately to external agency (ACB/Police) without internal groundwork (may tip off suspects; evidence gaps).
- Option 4 — Discreet, staged approach: immediate confidential fact-finding; protective measures for staff; maintain service continuity; build airtight evidence; then coordinated legal action and systemic reforms. (Recommended)
Recommended option and justification
Recommend Option 4 — a calibrated, lawful and transparent staged response:
- Step 1: Launch a discreet preliminary inquiry (empowered internal team/nominee from State Vigilance) to map extent and identify implicated nodes — preserves evidence and avoids tipping off suspects. ★
- Step 2: Ensure protective measures: anonymity/relief for cooperating staff, hotspots reassignment, hotline for complaints (align with Whistle Blowers Protection principles).
- Step 3: Simultaneously maintain processing by delegating CLU approvals to impartial officers, digitising workflow and temporary task forces to clear backlog — protects public interest.
- Step 4: Once evidence is robust, refer to ACB/Police + departmental enquiry, take prompt administrative action (suspension, disciplinary proceedings) ensuring due process.
- Step 5: Implement systemic reforms: e-governance of CLU, transparent checklists, regular audits, rotation policy, community grievance redress and staff training to prevent recurrence.
Justification: preserves rule of law, protects public service delivery, secures admissible evidence for prosecution, safeguards honest employees, minimises social disruption (unions, protests) and restores long-term institutional integrity.
Way Forward / Balanced View
- Institutionalise transparent digital workflows, mandatory public dashboards for CLU status, third-party audits, and community monitoring.
- Strengthen local vigilance, periodic ethical training, and responsive redressal to rebuild public trust and economic momentum.
Conclusion
A balanced, evidence-based, protective and reform-oriented response preserves integrity, ensures accountability, protects honest staff, clears the backlog and upholds rule of law — the cornerstone of public administration.
Word count 540Indicative model answer · for structured practice, not an official answer key.
Answer LengthModel answers may exceed the word limit for better clarity and depth. Use them as a guide, but always frame your final answer within the exam's prescribed limit.
Suggested PYQ
Related PYQs
[Case Study 3] Subhash is Secretary, PWD in the State Government. He is a senior officer, known for his competence, integrity and dedication to work. He enjoys the trust and confidence of Minister incharge of PWD and Programme Implementation. As a part of his job profile, he is responsible for policy formula- tions, execution of projects relating to infrastructure initiatives in the State. Besides, he oversees the technical and adminis- trative aspects relating to planning, designing and construction etc. Subhash's Minister is an important Minister in the state and significant growth in urban infrastructure development and road network has been registered during his tenure. He is very keen for launching of ambitious road construction project in the near future. Subhash is in regular touch with the Minister and is working various modalities of road construction project. Regular meetings, interactions and presentations are made by him to the Minister based on a formal public announcement of the project is made by the Minister. Subhash's only son Vikas is in real estate business. His son from his own sources is aware that a mega road project is on the anvil and announcement in this regard is expected anytime. He is very keen to know from his father the exact location of the upcoming project. He knows that there would be quantum jump in the prices of land in the vicinity. Buying land at this stage at cheaper prices would pay him rich dividends. He is pleading with him (his father) day in and day out to share him location of the proposed project. He assured him that he would handle the matter discreetly as it would not attract any adverse notice as he in the normal course, keeps on buying land as a part of his business. He feels pres- surised because of constant pleadings by his son. Another sig- nificant aspect of the matter pertained to the extra/undue in- terest in the above project by the Minister PWD. His nephew was also having big infrastructure project company. In fact, the Minister has also introduced his nephew to him and indicat- ed to him to take care of his nephew's business interest in the forthcoming project. The Minister encouraged him to act fast in the matter as early announcement and execution of mega road project would enhance his status in the party and public life. In the above backdrop, Subhash is in a fix as to the future course of action.
(a) Discuss the ethical issues involved in the case.
(b) Critically examine the options available to Subhash in the above situation?
(c) Which of the above would be most appropriate and why??GS42025[Case Study 4] "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 responsi- ble 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 as- sessment 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 Organisa- tion, expenditure for office items exceeding Rupees Thirty Lakhs requires sanction of the next higher authority (boss in the pres- ent 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 ex- penditure (where large order is divided into a series of smaller ones) is followed to avoid obtaining sanction from higher au- thority. 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 sit- uation?
(b) What are the ethical issues involved in this case?
(c) Which would be the most appropriate option for Rajesh and why??GS42025Vikas is a government officer with over a decade of service in public administration. He has recently moved as the District Collector (DC) of Nainipura, a remote hilly district bordering a forest. Due to Nainipura's low levels of economic development, one of his major duties is to ensure proper functioning of the public distribution system (PDS) amongst the economically weaker sections (EWS). During his on-site visits, Vikas was apprised of a typical administrative challenge in operating the PDS. To prevent leakages, all distributors were required to carry out real-time biometric identification of the beneficiaries, whose fingerprints were tallied with identity card records. This was creating problems as the operating system sometimes rejected fingerprint matching in the cases of growing children, manual labourers and senior citizens. The problem was further compounded in periods of low WiFi connectivity. The distributors, in such cases, resorted to personal discretion when they could identify the recipient. Vikas had to address this problem on priority. Strictly adhering to government regulations would ensure fiscal probity but would greatly trouble the proposed beneficiary, i.e., EWS. It may even impinge on their fundamental right to life as per Article 21 of the Constitution. Conversely, leaving the resolution solely to the discretion of the distributors could lead to misuse and leakages. (a) What are the options open to Vikas? How should he balance fiscal probity with empathy towards the designated beneficiaries? (b) Discuss the ethics of using technology as a gatekeeper for welfare schemes.GS42026