SC Halts Return of Dog-Walk IAS Officer

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has postponed IAS officer Rinku Dhugga's reinstatement, which it had granted in the wake of her husband being arrested in connection with the 2022 Thyagaraj Stadium scandal in which the officer and her spouse were caught clearing off athletes from the stadium to walk their dog. The Centre will argue its case for the High Court at Delhi to overrule her order in a second hearing on October 13.

Interim Order Halts Reinstatement, says the U.S. Court of Appeals

The Supreme Court has deferred the reinstatement of Indian Administrative Service officer Rinku Dhugga, whose case had earlier been kept pending by Delhi High Court after it had quashed the compulsory retirement of the officer. The Union Government had filed a plea challenging the High Court's order against Dhugga, who was served a notice by a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana.

The bench's order recalled stated: "In interim stage, reinstatement of the respondent shall be stayed. The issue will be taken up again on October 13 when the matter is referred to the constitution bench in Union of India v Rinku Dhugga (SLP (C) No. 25799/2026).

A brief history of the controversy

The incident happened in May 2022 when Home Ministry had shifted IAS couple Sanjeev Khirwar and his wife to Arunachal Pradesh from their post in Delhi, Principal Secretary (Revenue) of the Delhi department, after the reports of misuse of their official position at Thyagaraj stadium in the city.

When Khirwar was seen walking his dog at the stadium, the reports said that the stadium staff was forcing the athletes and coaches to leave before usual time of 7 pm.

However, Khirwar said that he does not consider that his walks affected the training of the athletes but admits taking his dog into the stadium "sometimes". The row led to an instant policy response by the Delhi government at that time. Then, Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia announced that the Delhi government's all sports facilities will remain open till 10pm for athletes to train without any disturbance.

From Transfer to Compulsory Retirement

The consequences of the discipline were played out slowly. The government of Arunachal Pradesh has compulsorily retired the AGMUT cadre officer Dhugga, who was serving as Principal Secretary Indigenous Affairs from 1994 batch, under Fundamental Rule 56(j) and Rule 48 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The clause, noted officials, gives the government the freedom to dismiss any officer 'If it is in the public interest to do so'.

Dhugga challenged the order before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and it was held in her favour. She was reinstated by the CAT, which was upheld by the Delhi High Court on 15th April.

High Court's Reasoning

The High Court's ruling – which has come under challenge at the Supreme Court – was based not on the merits of the complaint about the dogs' walkability itself, but on the process that the government's Review Committee followed.

The High Court ruled that the compulsory retirement could not be upheld because the Review Committee failed to take into account the following: Dhugga had not received any adverse comments in her Annual Performance Appraisal Reports; her grading in the previous years was "outstanding"; and she was considered for promotion at the time.

It was their view that compulsory retirement is designed to remove the "deadwood" from the service, a description that the court did not apply to her service record.

An Unusual Coda

Noticeably, Khirwar's career path was not impacted by the controversy. Khirwar became the newly appointed Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) Commissioner in January this year and the Union Home Ministry informed the office of Lieutenant Governor of the Delhi.

The Road Ahead

The stay imposed by the Supreme Court is on Dhugga's reinstatement while the constitutional issues concerning procedural fairness in compulsory retirement cases are being argued again.

The Centre had earlier invoked FR 56(j) and Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, to order her retirement ‘in public interest' and the Supreme Court will review the validity of that decision, as well as the decision of the High Court that overturned the Centre's order.

The next hearing, on October 13, will likely address the Centre's substantive arguments the governance post.