“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??
This question is available to read here. The practice button generates a fresh question from the same paper. Here, practise an answer plan in keywords. Choose your timer on the next screen. Feedback uses our common 15-point practice rubric, rather than the paper’s original mark allocation.
In September 2026, political leader Aaditya Thackeray urged the Maharashtra government to defer the Maharashtra Public Service Commission State Service Mains examination until the reform committee headed by Additional Chief Secretary V. Radha submits its report and recommendations are implemented. The demand highlights systemic concerns regarding exam scheduling, transparency, and candidate grievances in public service recruitment.
The Kerala Public Services Commission has approached the High Court to challenge prosecution sanction orders and criminal cases registered against its members and staff. Stemming from alleged procedural irregularities in the appointment of the Chief of the Industry and Infrastructure Division at the Kerala State Planning Board, this legal challenge brings to the forefront critical questions concerning the statutory immunity, functional autonomy, and accountability mechanisms governing independent constitutional bodies in India. The dispute underscores the delicate legal boundary between executive oversight of administrative appointments and the protection of constitutional functionaries from external coercion.
On September 21, 2026, the Madras High Court granted leave to Tamil Nadu Minister T.K. Prabhu to initiate a civil defamation suit seeking damages of ₹1 crore against a YouTuber, Maridhas. The petition, permitted by Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi, underscores the evolving dynamics between public functionaries and the burgeoning digital content ecosystem. While public discourse often demands scrutiny of political figures, the legal action highlights the threshold where digital commentary transitions into actionable defamation. This case serves as a point of reflection on the balance between constitutional protections for free speech and the individual rights of public figures to protect their reputation against potentially unverified or malicious claims in the digital sphere.