Dog walking in stadium; SC stays Delhi HC order asking Centre to reinstate IAS officer

The Supreme Court has stayed the reinstatement of IAS officer Rinku Dhugga, who was compulsorily retired by the Centre following a controversy over the Thyagaraj Stadium being allegedly emptied so she could walk her dog.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notice to Dhugga on the Centre’s challenge to the Delhi High Court judgment setting aside her compulsory retirement.

“In the meantime, the reinstatement of the respondent shall remain stayed,” the bench said in its order on September 7.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on October 13.

The Centre was represented by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati.

Dhugga had challenged the Centre’s decision before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which ordered her reinstatement.

The high court subsequently upheld the CAT’s decision in its April 15 judgment.

The controversy dates back to 2022 when Dhugga and her husband, also an IAS officer, were accused of having the Thyagaraj Stadium emptied to enable her to walk her dog. There was outrage after photographs and reports of the episode.

The high court said the incident had resulted in a minor punishment in disciplinary proceedings. It also considered an allegation concerning her unauthorised absence. Both incidents were cited in connection with the decision to compulsorily retire her.

The high court also found that the review committee’s decision recommending her compulsory retirement could not be sustained because it had failed to take into account several relevant aspects of her service record. These included the absence of adverse remarks in her Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs), her outstanding grading in preceding years and the fact that she was being considered for promotion.

The high court also observed that compulsory retirement is intended to remove officers considered to be “deadwood” from the service and held that this principle was not applicable to Dhugga’s case.