SC stays reinstatement of IAS officer who made news over walking her dog

The Supreme Court has stayed the reinstatement of IAS officer Rinku Dhugga, whose compulsory retirement by the Centre was set aside by the Delhi High Court earlier this year.

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. The bench also ordered that her reinstatement remain stayed pending further proceedings. The case will next be heard on 13 October.

The case dates back to a controversy in May 2022 involving Delhi’s Thyagaraj Stadium, where Dhugga was then serving as secretary of the Delhi government’s land and buildings department. Her husband, Sanjeev Khirwar, was then Delhi’s divisional commissioner.

The couple came under public scrutiny after reports and photographs emerged alleging that athletes and coaches were made to leave the Thyagaraj Stadium before its scheduled closing time so that Dhugga could walk her dog there. The controversy triggered widespread criticism and led to disciplinary proceedings against both officers.

Dhugga was subsequently issued a charge sheet for a minor penalty, while Khirwar was also awarded a minor punishment in connection with the incident. The Delhi High Court later noted that no disciplinary proceeding was ultimately pursued against Dhugga in relation to the stadium episode.

Dhugga was transferred to Arunachal Pradesh shortly after the controversy. She had joined the IAS in 1994 as part of the AGMUT cadre and had risen through the ranks to the super-time scale in 2010.

In August 2023, however, the Centre ordered her compulsory retirement under Rule 16(3) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958. The provision permits the government to retire an officer in public interest after a prescribed period of service or on attaining the specified age, following a review of the officer’s service record.

The decision followed a review by a committee in March 2023. The committee considered, among other things, the stadium-related disciplinary proceedings, allegations of unauthorised absence and other aspects of Dhugga’s service record. It concluded that she was not fit to continue in government service and recommended her premature retirement.

Dhugga challenged the decision before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), arguing that the government had failed to properly assess her overall service record. The CAT set aside the compulsory retirement order and directed her reinstatement. The Union government then approached Delhi High Court.

In its 15 April judgment, the Delhi High Court upheld the CAT’s decision and found that the compulsory retirement could not be sustained.

A key issue before the high court was the purpose of compulsory retirement. The court noted that such retirement is not intended to be a substitute for disciplinary action or a punitive measure. Rather, it is meant to remove 'deadwood' from the administration — officers whose continued presence is considered detrimental to efficiency, integrity or public administration.

The high court noted that the review committee had failed to properly account for the fact that Dhugga had been considered for promotion and had already reached the super-time scale. According to the court, these factors were difficult to reconcile with a conclusion that she was 'deadwood' and should be removed from service.

The court also stressed that a pending charge sheet merely contains allegations that have not yet been established. It held that compulsory retirement could not be used as a way of bypassing disciplinary proceedings.

The Centre subsequently challenged the high court judgment in the Supreme Court, arguing that the high court and the CAT had effectively substituted their own assessment for that of the competent administrative authority. The government has maintained that compulsory retirement is primarily an administrative decision and that judicial interference should be limited.