20 marks
250 words
Case study
You discover that a close colleague and friend, who has helped you greatly in the past, has been taking small bribes to speed up files. Reporting him will end his career and hurt his family; staying silent makes you complicit. What will you do and why?
Decoding the directive: “Case study”
Balance personal loyalty against professional duty using the structured method; avoid both harshness and cover-up.
What UPSC is really asking
This tests the conflict between personal loyalty and integrity. Identify stakeholders, the loyalty-vs-duty dilemma, graded options (from a private warning to formal reporting), and a defensible, humane but principled decision.
Dimensions the examiner expects
Cover these dimensions
- Stakeholders — colleague, his family, the public/service, you
- Dilemma — friendship & gratitude vs. integrity & complicity
- Options — ignore, counsel privately, give a chance to stop and repay, or report formally
- Chosen action — a graded, principled response ending complicity
- Justification — integrity is non-negotiable; humaneness in method
Concepts & keywords to name
Use the right vocabulary
- Conflict of interest — personal vs. professional
- Integrity — the core civil-service value
- Whistle-blowing & conscience
- Compassion vs. condonation — humane but firm
Common mistakes to avoid
Don’t do this
- Choosing pure loyalty (silence) — that is complicity
- Choosing pure punishment with no humanity or process
- No graded options — jumping straight to one extreme
Quick hints before you write
Structuring tips
- Show a graded escalation, not a single binary choice.
- Make clear that ending complicity is non-negotiable, even if the method is humane.
Ready to write? Evaluate your answer — free
Write your answer to the word limit (250 words) — type it or upload a photo of your handwritten answer in the evaluator. Get a score, dimension breakdown, paragraph-level feedback, missing keywords and a full model answer for this exact question.
Evaluate My Answer →