UPSC Mains 2023 GS4 Q7: model answer
You are working as an executive in a nationalised bank for several years. One day one of your close colleagues tells you that her father is suffering from heart disease and needs surgery immediately to survive. She also tells you that she has no insurance and the operation will cost about ₹ 10 lakh. You are also aware of the fact that her husband is no more and that she is from a lower middle class family. You are empathetic about her situation. However, apart from expressing your sympathy, you do not have the resources to fund her.
A few weeks later, you ask her about the well-being of her father and she informs you about his successful surgery and that he is recovering. She then confides in you that the bank manager was kind enough to facilitate the release of ₹ 10 lakh from a dormant account of someone to pay for the operation with a promise that it should be confidential and be repaid at the earliest. She has already started paying it back and will continue to do so until it is all returned.
(a) What are the ethical issues involved ?
(b) Evaluate the behaviour of the bank manager from an ethical point of view.
(c) How would you react to the situation ?
What the question wants
Identify the issues, judge the manager's act and decide your own response.
How to structure it
Intro: compassion versus integrity in a public bank. Body: (a) Issues: misuse of public money, breach of trust of the depositor, rule of law, compassion, loyalty to colleague, whistleblowing dilemma, confidentiality; (b) Evaluation of manager: good intention but wrong means; breach of fiduciary duty, illegal, sets precedent; consequentialism vs deontology; (c) Response: talk to colleague, encourage voluntary disclosure, report to vigilance through proper channel, suggest legitimate help (loan, insurance schemes, crowdfunding, PMJAY), support her. Conclusion: compassion within integrity.
- 1(a) Issues: misuse of public money, breach of trust of the depositor, rule of law, compassion, loyalty to colleague, whistleblowing dilemma, confidentiality
- 2(b) Evaluation of manager: good intention but wrong means
- 3Breach of fiduciary duty, illegal, sets precedent
- 4Consequentialism vs deontology
- 5(c) Response: talk to colleague, encourage voluntary disclosure, report to vigilance through proper channel, suggest legitimate help (loan, insurance schemes, crowdfunding, PMJAY), support her
Model answer
The case sets compassion for a colleague against integrity in handling public money.
(a) Ethical issues
- Misuse of public trust: a depositor's money was used without consent.
- Rule of law versus compassion: a life was saved through an illegal act.
- Fiduciary duty of a bank to its depositors.
- Loyalty versus duty: friendship with the colleague versus duty to the bank.
- Whistleblowing dilemma and confidentiality shared in trust.
(b) Evaluating the bank manager
- Intent: compassionate; he helped save a life.
- Means: wrong. He breached the bank's rules and the depositor's rights; the end does not justify the means.
- Risk: if the depositor had claimed the money, the bank and customers would suffer.
- Precedent: such favours open the door to fraud and favouritism.
- From a Kantian view it fails; even from a consequentialist view the long-term harm to trust outweighs the gain. His action was unethical and illegal.
(c) My response
- Speak privately to my colleague, showing empathy, and explain the seriousness for her and the manager.
- Encourage her and the manager to disclose it voluntarily and repay through a formal staff loan, which may soften consequences.
- If they do not, report the matter to the bank's vigilance officer through proper channels, as my duty requires.
- Help her find legitimate support: staff welfare funds, an emergency loan, Ayushman Bharat PM-JAY or hospital charity schemes.
- Suggest the bank create an emergency staff medical loan scheme.
Compassion is a public service value, but it must work within integrity.
Keywords, cases and data to drop in
fiduciary duty ends and means whistleblowing compassion integrity
Where most answers lose marks
- Ignoring the illegality because the motive was good.
- Reporting without any empathy.
Fresh examples from current affairs
Supreme Court: no prior approval under Section 17A needed to probe a bribe demand
In a judgment of 16 October 2026, a Supreme Court Bench of Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria held that investigating a bribe demand by a public servant does not need prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Asking for a bribe, the court said, is not part of discharging official duties.
UPSC angle: Prelims: Sections 7, 7A, 17A and 19 of the PC Act. · Mains GS-II/GS-IV: honest officers versus accountability.
19 Oct 2026Learn the concept
Question text as printed in the official UPSC question paper: https://www.upsc.gov.in/sites/default/files/QP-CSM-23-GENERAL-STUDIES-PAPER-IV-180923.pdf The model answer is original Battle IAS work; use it to learn structure, not to memorise.