Case studies: probity, corruption and conflicts of interest

1 · First Principles IAS original20 marks250 words

Dr. Kavita Menon is Deputy Director General in a national statistical organisation, with thirty-one years of service and twenty-two months to retirement. She heads the team finalising the fact sheet of a large household survey conducted over 2023 and 2024. Two indicators show clear deterioration since the previous round. Both relate to a flagship national mission publicised extensively over five years. The full report, which will carry all tables, is scheduled for release in due course; no date has been fixed. The fact sheet is what the press, state governments and researchers will actually use, and past experience is that the full report attracts almost no attention. At a pre-release meeting, a senior officer proposes that the two indicators be dropped from the fact sheet, on the ground that the measurement protocol was revised between rounds and the figures are not strictly comparable. Kavita knows the revision was minor. She also knows the organisation published comparable series across three earlier protocol changes, each time with a footnote. Nobody instructs her. The proposal is recorded as a technical suggestion. Her signature is required on the release. Kavita is under consideration for a post-retirement appointment to a national commission, a position for which the same department will forward her name. Priya, the young statistician who prepared the tables, comes to her room afterwards and asks what she intends to do. (a) Identify the ethical issues involved. (b) Distinguish between suppression of data and legitimate methodological caution. Where does this case fall? (c) Evaluate the conduct of the officer who made the proposal. (d) What would you do in Kavita's position, and what would you say to Priya?

The model answer is published the following morning.

2 · First Principles IAS original20 marks250 words

Shalini Bhatt heads the procurement committee of a state technology mission implementing a citizen services platform. Bids have been received for the core software contract, valued at Rs 340 crore. Before opening the technical bids, she discovers that one of three qualified bidders is a company in which her husband holds a 0.6 per cent stake through a private equity fund, acquired in 2023, two years before her posting. The holding is lawful, disclosed in her annual property return, and gives him no operational role or board seat. Selling now would itself signal something to the market and would in any case take weeks. On evaluation, that bidder has the strongest technical proposal and the lowest price. The other two are materially weaker; one has failed a similar project in another state. Shalini is the only member of the committee with software procurement experience. Recusal would leave the decision to three officers without it, and the project is already eleven months behind schedule against a commitment made to the Chief Minister. Her superior tells her that the disclosure in her property return is sufficient, that the holding is negligible, and that recusal would look like an admission of something. (a) Distinguish between an actual and a perceived conflict of interest, and classify this case. (b) What options are available to Shalini? Evaluate each. (c) Which would you adopt and why? (d) Does the size of a financial interest affect the ethical obligation? Justify.

The model answer is published the following morning.

3 · First Principles IAS original20 marks250 words

Rohit Malhotra is General Manager (Procurement) at a hospital chain, with nineteen years of experience and a reputation for straightness. He is finalising a Rs 78 crore order for imaging equipment. His personal position is difficult. His younger son, aged seven, was diagnosed last year with a condition requiring a procedure abroad, estimated at Rs 55 lakh, of which insurance will cover Rs 12 lakh. He has raised Rs 20 lakh by selling his wife's inherited land and mortgaging his flat. He needs the balance within four months for the surgical window. The regional head of one of the bidding companies invites him to dinner. No bribe is offered. Instead, he mentions that his firm retains consultants on healthcare procurement, that Rohit's wife, who holds a degree in hospital administration and has not worked for eleven years, would be an ideal fit, and that such retainers run to about Rs 30 lakh annually. The engagement would be genuine, documented, and lawful. He adds that his firm's bid is competitive on merit and would probably win anyway, and that Rohit should evaluate it exactly as he would any other. Rohit knows the bid is in fact strong. He also knows that if he selects it, he will never afterwards be certain why. (a) Identify the ethical issues involved. (b) Is there a moral difference between a bribe and a lawful retainer offered to a family member? Argue your position. (c) What options are available to Rohit? Evaluate each. (d) Which would you adopt and why?

The model answer is published the following morning.