Mains Practice Questions

Stakeholders Involved

• Rakesh Mehta (Executive Engineer, PWD) – Public servant responsible for ensuring fairness, transparency, and value for public money.
• Senior Officials and Political Leaders – Exercising pressure to favour a particular contractor for personal or political gains.
• Private Contractors – Genuine bidders who are unfairly excluded and the favoured contractor benefiting from manipulation.
• Tender Evaluation Committee and Departmental Staff – Influenced or coerced into overlooking irregularities.
• Citizens and Local Communities – End-users of infrastructure projects affected by poor quality and inflated costs.
• Government and Public Exchequer – Suffers financial loss and reputational damage due to corrupt practices.
• Media and Civil Society – Acting as watchdogs by raising concerns over governance failures.

Q1. Ethical Issues Involved in the Case

• Corruption and Abuse of Power: The deliberate manipulation of tender conditions to favour a particular contractor is a clear misuse of official authority. Public power, which is meant to be exercised as a trust for citizens, is diverted for private gain such as kickbacks and political funding.
  • This violates the ethical principles of integrity, honesty, and impartiality expected from public officials.
• Violation of Transparency and Fair Competition: Introducing unnecessarily restrictive eligibility criteria undermines the basic principles of transparency and a level playing field. Genuine and capable contractors are unfairly excluded, converting the tendering process into a predetermined exercise.
  • Such practices defeat the purpose of competitive bidding, which exists to ensure efficiency, innovation, and value for public money.
• Conflict of Interest: When political and financial considerations influence administrative decisions, public interest is subordinated to private benefit. The officials involved face a conflict between their duty to act objectively and pressures arising from personal or political affiliations.
  • This compromises decision-making and erodes ethical neutrality in governance.
• Compromise of Public Interest: Awarding contracts to firms with poor track records and higher bids leads to substandard infrastructure, cost overruns, and delayed projects.
  • Ultimately, citizens suffer due to unsafe roads, poor-quality buildings, and misuse of taxpayer funds. Public resources meant for development are thus wasted.
• Moral Complicity through Silence and Normalisation of Corruption: The advice to “go with the system” reflects the normalization of unethical practices within the organization. Silence or passive compliance makes honest officers morally complicit in wrongdoing.
  • Over time, such acceptance weakens professional ethics, encourages corruption as a routine practice, and discourages integrity-based decision-making.

Q2. Ethical Dilemmas Faced by Rakesh Mehta

• Integrity vs Career Security: Rakesh faces a direct conflict between acting with honesty and protecting his career. Resisting political pressure may lead to transfer, isolation, or denial of future opportunities, while compliance ensures short-term safety but permanently damages his moral integrity.
• Obedience to Authority vs Rule of Law: As a government servant, Rakesh is expected to follow instructions from seniors. However, when these instructions violate tender rules and procurement laws, he must choose between unquestioned obedience and his constitutional duty to uphold legality and fairness.
• Individual Ethics vs Systemic Corruption” The corruption appears to be institutionalized, with colleagues advising him to “go with the system.” Challenging such a system can make Rakesh feel isolated, yet conforming would make him an active participant in unethical governance.
• Short-Term Convenience vs Long-Term Public Interest: Ignoring irregularities may bring immediate relief and stability, but it causes long-term harm in the form of poor infrastructure, financial losses, and erosion of public trust in governance.
• Professional Responsibility vs Moral Courage: Taking a stand requires courage and resilience, especially when previous officers have faced punitive transfers. Rakesh must decide whether to act as a mere rule-follower or as a morally responsible public servant.

Q3. Most Appropriate Course of Action for Rakesh Mehta

• Uphold Constitutional and Professional Duty: Rakesh should recognize that as a public servant, his primary responsibility is towards public interest, transparency, and probity in governance, not personal career security. Remaining silent would amount to ethical compromise and dereliction of duty.
• Formally Record Objections and Ensure Due Process: Place his concerns regarding restrictive eligibility criteria, higher bid value, and poor track record of the preferred contractor on official files.
  • Demand written justifications for deviations from standard procurement norms.
  • Ensure that tender evaluation follows objective, rule-based criteria.
  • This creates an institutional record and protects him from future liability.
• Seek Internal Redressal Through Hierarchical Channels: Escalate the matter to the Chief Engineer / Principal Secretary (PWD) through proper channels.
  • Request reconsideration of tender conditions or re-tendering if violations are evident.
  • Seek written directions if pressured to approve irregular decisions.
  • This demonstrates loyalty to the system while resisting unethical practices.
• Invoke Vigilance and Statutory Oversight Mechanisms: If internal mechanisms fail:
  • Approach the State Vigilance Commission / Departmental Vigilance Cell.
  • Flag the issue for audit scrutiny under financial and service conduct rules.
  • Seek protection under applicable whistle-blower provisions.
  • This shifts the issue from personal resistance to institutional accountability.
• Promote Transparency and Fair Competition: Recommend use of e-procurement platforms, public disclosure of tender criteria, and third-party quality audits.
  • Advocate for performance-based evaluation of contractors to prevent substandard public works.
  • This addresses both immediate and systemic governance concerns.
• Maintain Ethical Resilience and Professional Integrity: Remain firm yet polite, avoiding confrontation or politicisation.
  • Accept possible adverse career consequences with moral courage, knowing that ethical conduct ensures long-term credibility and public trust.

Long-Term Preventive Measures

• Promote Transparent and Technology-Driven Procurement Systems: Wider adoption of e-tendering, e-procurement portals, open bid documents, and digital evaluation records reduces human discretion and manipulation.
  • Independent technical evaluation committees and mandatory third-party audits ensure objectivity and value for public money.
• Enhance Public Accountability and Media Scrutiny: Proactive disclosure of tender details, contract awards, and project status through public dashboards enables citizen oversight. Media scrutiny and social audits act as external deterrents against corrupt practices.
• Institutionalise Strong Internal Vigilance Mechanisms: Empowered vigilance wings, regular internal audits, and surprise inspections help detect irregularities early. Time-bound action on audit objections reinforces accountability.
• Clear Conflict of Interest Rules: Mandatory disclosure of interests and strict penalties for violations prevent undue influence in tender decisions and enhance institutional neutrality.

Conclusion:

Corruption in public procurement strikes at the core of ethical governance by diverting public resources away from development and public welfare. Upholding integrity, transparency, and accountability—despite pressure—defines the true spirit of public service. As Mahatma Gandhi aptly said, “The moment there is suspicion about a person’s motives, everything he does becomes tainted.” Ethical courage supported by strong institutions is essential to restore public trust and ensure fair governance.