Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardWorkplace Grievance and Subordinate Management Scenarios

You are a Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) managing a district revenue office. A junior assistant submits a formal written complaint alleging that their reporting Senior Section Officer is deliberately withholding their career advancement recommendation and subjecting them to hostile verbal harassment. Simultaneously, the Senior Section Officer submits an official note claiming that the junior assistant has committed severe procedural lapses regarding missing land registry files, asserting that the grievance is a retaliatory tactic to pre-empt an impending disciplinary inquiry. A critical public land acquisition audit deadline falls in three days, requiring technical inputs from both employees. Which of the following courses of action represents the most administratively sound, ethically compliant, and effective decision for the officer in charge?

  1. Temporarily reassign the supervision of the junior assistant's audit duties to an independent senior officer to ensure administrative continuity, initiate a formal preliminary inquiry into the grievance as per service rules, and permit the missing files inquiry to proceed independently through due process.Answer
  2. B
    Immediately suspend the Senior Section Officer pending investigation to demonstrate zero tolerance for workplace harassment, and order the immediate transfer of the junior assistant to a distant sub-office.
  3. C
    Informally mediate a compromise by agreeing to sign off on the junior assistant's advancement file in exchange for them withdrawing the harassment complaint and completing the audit work alongside the Senior Section Officer.
  4. D
    Issue an executive reprimand demanding both employees put aside personal grievances until the audit is completed, while deferring any grievance redressal or misconduct investigation until after project deadlines pass.

Answer

The administrator should reassign supervision temporarily to maintain work continuity, while independently investigating the grievance and performance lapses through formal due process.
The correct decision decouples the immediate operational requirement (audit completion) from the formal dispute resolution processes. Reassigning supervisory oversight protects the subordinate from potential hostility while preserving the integrity of the pending audit. Simultaneously, allowing both inquiries—the harassment grievance and the file missing inquiry—to proceed independently through formal channels strictly complies with principles of natural justice and civil service conduct rules.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the competing priorities and administrative constraints.
Identified three distinct elements: urgent public project audit (3-day deadline), workplace harassment grievance, and alleged procedural misconduct regarding missing files.
Administrative decisions must segregate operational urgency from formal disciplinary and grievance procedures.
2
Ensure immediate work continuity without compromising fairness or exposing either party to conflict.
Reassigned supervisory oversight of the junior assistant to a neutral senior officer for the duration of the audit.
This mitigates power asymmetry and potential victimisation while ensuring project deadlines are met.
3
Apply institutional rules for grievance redressal and disciplinary inquiry.
Initiated formal preliminary inquiries for both allegations independently under statutory rules.
Both harassment complaints and file management lapses require objective, evidence-based inquiry following principles of natural justice.

Key Concept

Procedural Due Process and Operational Segregation in Administrative Grievance Redressal
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Rate this question

Topics

Workplace Grievance and Subordinate Management Scenarios

More questions from this topic