Ravi, a senior IAS officer, is currently serving as the head of the State Health Procurement Division. He is tasked with overseeing the final stages of awarding a high-value government contract for the supply of critical medical equipment to district hospitals. This initiative is part of a public health modernization scheme aimed at strengthening healthcare delivery in underserved areas. Among the shortlisted bidders is a private firm that has submitted a technically sound and competitively priced proposal. However, it has come to light through a media report that Ravi’s daughter is a non-executive board member of this firm. Though she holds no operational or financial responsibilities, her association with the company has raised concerns in the public domain about a potential conflict of interest. At the same time, Ravi is facing covert pressure from a second bidder, a politically well- connected company with a track record of substandard deliveries and cost overruns in past government contracts. Representatives of this company have informally offered Ravi indirect favours, including the prospect of a lucrative post-retirement consultancy role, should he influence the contract award in their favour. Ravi is aware that while there is no formal requirement under departmental rules for recusal in this situation, the All India Services Conduct Rules do emphasize the importance of avoiding not just actual impropriety but even the appearance of impropriety. One of Ravi’s senior colleagues advises him to proceed with the technically strong bid, arguing that his daughter’s role is merely symbolic and that the bid deserves to win on merit. However, the situation escalates when an anonymous complaint is filed by a junior officer to the Chief Secretary, flagging the potential conflict of interest and the possibility of favoritism. The issue starts gaining media traction, casting doubts on the transparency and impartiality of the procurement process. Ravi now finds himself in a dilemma, torn between his professional duty, personal integrity, and public perception. (a) Identify and discuss the ethical issues involved in this case. (b) What are the options available to Ravi? Evaluate each with respect to ethical principles such as objectivity, integrity, accountability, and transparency. (c) What course of action should Ravi take to uphold both procedural propriety and public trust? Justify your decision using ethical reasoning. (d) How should Ravi manage the competing pressures of personal relationships, political influence, and institutional norms without compromising his role as a public servant?

Topper: Dev Dudeja · AIR 152 · 2025 · Page 31