Ethics Mini Mock: 30 Marks

Original topic practice

Original bilingual ethics mini-mock: four descriptive questions, 30 marks, suggested 30 minutes, with separate model answers and self-assessment rubrics. Topic practice, not a full-syllabus or official RPSC paper. Aligned to RPSC administrative ethics syllabus dated 9 January 2026. No automatic grading; use the included teaching rubric.

Instructions

Attempt all four questions in about 30 minutes before reading the model answers. Total: 30 marks. Follow each word limit. This is self-assessed topic practice, not a full paper or an official RPSC paper.

Questions

Question 1 — 5 marks, 50 words

Distinguish accountability from a blame culture. Give one administrative example.

Question 2 — 5 marks, 50 words

How can moral courage strengthen integrity when an officer discovers an error in their own report?

Question 3 — 10 marks, 150 words

A department proposes publishing every grievance, including names, phone numbers and personal circumstances, to demonstrate transparency. Evaluate the proposal and suggest a more ethical design. Assume no specific publication mandate is given.

Question 4 — 10 marks, 150 words

Fictional case: You manage an inspection team. A dashboard counts cases as “completed” when a visit is scheduled, even if the inspection has not occurred. You discover this error before a review meeting. Your supervisor says that correcting it immediately will make the team look inefficient and asks you to retain the figures until next month. Some pending inspections may concern serious safety risks. You can correct team records and prioritise visits within your assigned powers; you cannot sanction additional staff or funds. What would you do, and why? Compare options and give safeguards.

---

Model answers and self-assessment rubrics

Read this section only after attempting the questions. These are teaching examples, not the only acceptable answers.

Answer 1

Accountability requires explaining decisions, accepting scrutiny and correcting failures. A blame culture seeks a culprit without fairly examining evidence or systems. After a delayed service, a manager should establish responsibility, hear staff, fix the process and apply proportionate consequences, rather than publicly accusing one employee before inquiry.

Rubric: Distinction 2; example 2; clarity 1. / अंतर 2; उदाहरण 2; स्पष्टता 1।

Answer 2

Moral courage enables an officer to disclose an error despite embarrassment or pressure. Integrity requires truthful reporting, not protection of one’s image. The officer should verify the mistake, inform the appropriate authority, correct the record transparently and reduce downstream harm, while documenting changes and preventing recurrence.

Rubric: Conceptual link 2; practical response 2; clarity 1. / अवधारणात्मक संबंध 2; व्यावहारिक कदम 2; स्पष्टता 1।

Answer 3

Transparency should make the department’s decisions understandable, not expose complainants unnecessarily. Publishing all identifying information may cause embarrassment, retaliation or misuse and discourage genuine complaints. Yet secrecy about performance can hide delay or unfairness. I would publish eligibility or service standards, anonymised grievance categories, aggregate disposal times and reasons for systemic decisions. Each complainant should receive their own case status through an appropriately protected channel. Staff access to personal details should be limited to legitimate operational need. The design should consider re-identification risks even after names are removed, especially in small communities. A correction and grievance mechanism should let people challenge inaccurate disclosure or mishandling. Any applicable legal disclosure duty should be checked before implementation. Proportionate disclosure, reasoned decisions and privacy safeguards can therefore reinforce accountability without treating all personal data as public property.

Rubric: Trade-off 2; risks 2; workable design 3; review/legal limits 2; clarity 1. / संतुलन 2; जोखिम 2; व्यावहारिक व्यवस्था 3; समीक्षा/वैध सीमा 2; स्पष्टता 1।

Answer 4

Retaining the figures would knowingly misrepresent unfinished work; silently correcting them without explanation could also undermine traceability. I would verify the counting rule and affected records, preserve an audit trail and explain the error and correction to my supervisor before the review. The report should distinguish scheduled, inspected and genuinely completed cases. I would present the revised figures with a recovery plan rather than hide the backlog. Within my powers, inspections would be prioritised by credible safety risk, with reasons recorded and feasible assignments given to staff. Any additional resources would be requested from the competent authority, not promised without approval. If pressure to misreport continued, I would use the appropriate internal reporting channel with factual records and avoid unsupported accusations. I would test the revised dashboard and review delayed cases. Integrity requires accurate reporting; accountability adds correction, risk reduction and prevention of recurrence.

Rubric: Problem/options 2; integrity/accountability 2; authorised risk-based action 3; records/escalation/review 2; clarity 1. / समस्या-विकल्प 2; सत्यनिष्ठा-जवाबदेही 2; अधिकृत जोखिम-आधारित कार्रवाई 3; रिकॉर्ड/सूचना/समीक्षा 2; स्पष्टता 1।