Mains Practice Questions

Introduction

Sneha, a civil servant, faces ethical concerns surrounding the tendering process for an urgent rural development project. Anonymous allegations suggest irregularities involving the favored bidder (XYZ Pvt. Ltd.), compounded by political pressure from a local MLA urging quick approval.

Body

(a) Identify and discuss the ethical issues involved in the case.

• Political Interference: The MLA’s involvement in influencing the tender undermines bureaucratic impartiality and neutrality.
  • Such interference compromises good governance and distorts fair administrative practices.
  • It also violates established norms separating politics from administrative decision-making.
• Transparency and Accountability: Manipulating quality reports poses serious ethical concerns about transparency in tender allocation.
  • This undermines public accountability, potentially leading to substandard project outcomes.
  • Ensuring transparency is essential to uphold trust in public processes.
• Integrity in Public Service: Ignoring informal allegations may compromise Sneha's integrity, risking unethical decision-making.
  • Upholding integrity requires addressing concerns promptly and impartially. Failure to do so can erode public trust in administrative processes.
• Public Interest and Welfare: Awarding contracts without proper investigation jeopardizes public welfare and effective service delivery.
  • The project’s significance for rural livelihoods heightens ethical obligations toward ensuring quality outcomes.
  • Neglecting due diligence harms vulnerable communities.
• Professional Autonomy: Threats regarding Sneha’s transfer challenge her ability to make unbiased, independent decisions.
  • Such coercion threatens professional autonomy, an essential ethical principle for civil servants.
  • Maintaining autonomy protects decision-making integrity and upholds ethical governance.

(b) What are the options available to Sneha? Evaluate each of them. What would be the most appropriate course of action for Sneha?

Option 1: Ignore allegations, quickly award tender

• Pros: Immediate project execution; satisfies political pressure; secures personal career interests.
• Cons: Risks project quality; compromises integrity; undermines public trust; potential legal liabilities.

Option 2: Pause and order full investigation into allegations

• Pros: Ensures transparency and accountability; upholds integrity; reduces future legal or ethical issues.
• Cons: Delays project, affecting rural beneficiaries; risks personal backlash or punitive transfers.

Option 3: Consult senior administrative authorities for guidance

• Pros: Gains institutional backing; reduces personal risk; adds legitimacy and transparency.
• Cons: Could prolong decision-making; may escalate political tensions or bureaucratic resistance.

Option 4: Conditional award (Award tender but initiate parallel inquiry)

• Pros: Balances immediate project needs with integrity concerns; mitigates delays; retains flexibility.
• Cons: Potential for partial compromise if allegations are substantiated; might still face political backlash.

Most Appropriate Course of Action (Combination of Options 3 and 4):

• Sneha should pragmatically consult senior administrative authorities (Option 3) to transparently document the concerns and secure institutional support.
• Simultaneously, she should award the tender conditionally (Option 4)—clearly stipulating that continuation of the contract depends on an expedited and impartial investigation into allegations.
  • This approach pragmatically balances integrity, accountability, timely project implementation, and personal career safety.

(c) In the long run, how should public institutions ensure ethical integrity and transparency in public procurement while balancing the urgency of developmental needs?

• Robust Digitalization of Procurement: Public institutions must digitize procurement processes fully, utilizing e-tendering platforms and blockchain technology to ensure transparency.
  • This minimizes manual interference and corruption, speeding up procurement timelines without compromising fairness or accountability.
• Strengthened Oversight Mechanisms: Independent oversight bodies or anti-corruption cells must regularly monitor procurement practices.
  • Rigorous audits, both internal and external, should be standard, helping detect and deter unethical practices early without causing significant delays.
• Transparent and Timely Communication: Ensuring proactive disclosure of all procurement-related information—including criteria, evaluation methods, and contracts awarded—builds public trust.
  • This also reduces misinformation, decreases political interference, and accelerates decision-making by clarifying responsibilities.
• Capacity Building and Ethical Training: Regularly training public officials in ethical procurement practices, procedural fairness, and integrity promotes an ethical culture within institutions.
  • Capacity building ensures officials are equipped to manage urgent developmental projects ethically without sacrificing efficiency.
• Institutionalized Grievance and Redressal Mechanism: Establishing effective grievance-handling mechanisms allows stakeholders to raise concerns rapidly, enabling prompt action.
  • Efficient and transparent redressal systems ensure integrity is maintained even under time-sensitive developmental pressures.

Conclusion

Sneha must act pragmatically, balancing project urgency with ethical integrity by consulting senior authorities and conditionally awarding the tender pending investigation. Long-term solutions like digitalization, transparency, and oversight mechanisms are crucial to prevent recurrence. Ultimately, maintaining public trust through ethical governance remains paramount.