UPSC Mains 2017 GS Paper 4 Q9: model answer
You are an honest and responsible civil servant. You often observe the following : (a) There is a general perception that adhering to ethical conduct one may face difficulties to oneself and cause problems for the family, whereas unfair practices may help to reach the career goals. (b) When the number of people adopting unfair means is large, a small minority having a penchant towards ethical means makes no difference. (c) Sticking to ethical means is detrimental to the larger developmental goals. (d) While one may not involve oneself in large unethical practices, but giving and accepting small gifts makes the system more efficient. Examine the above statements with their merits and demerits.
What the question wants
Examine four statements that excuse unethical conduct, giving merits and demerits of each.
How to structure it
Each statement: merit, demerit.
(a) Career cost
(b) Minority irrelevant
(c) Ethics vs development
(d) Small gifts
How to think it through
Near-repeat of 2014-10 but from an officer's view and asking merits/demerits. Use different examples: Ashok Khemka transfers (merit), but integrity long-term (Khemka respected); E. Sreedharan (Konkan, Delhi Metro: ethics + speed); Durga Shakti Nagpal; 'broken windows'; CCS Conduct Rule 13 gifts limits; Santhanam Committee 1964 on speed money.
Model answer
Stakeholders
- Honest civil servants and their families; citizens; the system; future officers who learn from what they see.
Dilemmas
- Personal security vs integrity; efficiency vs probity.
Options
- Accept the statements; reject them outright; weigh each and draw a balanced conclusion.
Each of these statements is said in canteens every day. They sound practical, which is why they need examining rather than dismissing.
(a) Ethics causes hardship; unfair means help careers
- Merit: honest officers do face frequent transfers and isolation; Haryana's Ashok Khemka was moved dozens of times.
- Demerit: careers built on unfair means rest on someone else's silence and can collapse with one inquiry. Khemka also became a byword for credibility, something money cannot buy.
(b) A small ethical minority makes no difference
- Merit: one person cannot reform a department alone.
- Demerit: norms change through visible examples. A single honest officer often becomes the person whom citizens seek out and juniors copy. The 'broken windows' logic works in reverse too: one repaired window shows care.
(c) Ethics hurts development
- Merit: excessive caution and fear of inquiries can slow decisions.
- Demerit: that is a problem of fear, not ethics. E. Sreedharan built the Konkan Railway and the Delhi Metro on time with a reputation for integrity. Corruption, not honesty, causes cost overruns and collapsing bridges.
(d) Small gifts make the system efficient
- Merit: small courtesies ease relationships; the conduct rules themselves allow gifts of small value from friends and relatives, with limits.
- Demerit: gifts linked to official work create obligation. The Santhanam Committee (1964) warned that 'speed money' leads to deliberate delay so that speed can be sold. The rich get service; the poor wait.
Conclusion
- The statements confuse what is easy with what is right.
- The practical answer is not heroic martyrdom but prudent integrity: knowing the rules, documenting decisions, building alliances and protecting honest decision-making.
An officer who gives in on small things will not find the strength for big ones. Character is built in exactly these small refusals.
Draw: A two-column table: 'merit' and 'demerit' for (a)–(d), with a final row 'verdict'.
Keywords, cases and data to drop in
career cost, Ashok Khemka, minority influence, broken windows, E. Sreedharan, Konkan Railway, Delhi Metro, policy paralysis, conduct rules gift limits, Santhanam Committee 1964, speed money, prudent integrity.
Where most answers lose marks
- Copying the 2014 answer as it is; this question asks for merits and demerits of each statement, not advice to a friend.
Related Mains PYQs
- A business house is working on a project that could displace a forest community from their habitat. As the administrative officer of… UPSC 2026 · GS-IV
- Owing to paucity of time, a university professor generates a Ph.D. evaluation report using Artificial Intelligence and submits it with some modifications.… UPSC 2026 · GS-IV
- An endangered tribe has developed a severe skeletal deformity. A university research has identified a mineral supplement as a possible remedy, though… UPSC 2026 · GS-IV
- Discuss how national security can be balanced with concerns of human rights. UPSC 2026 · GS-IV
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 Civil Services (Main) question paper. The model answer is original Battle IAS work; use it to learn structure, not to memorise.
Want every PYQ in one place? See the Battle IAS PYQ Book.