New Delhi, Sep 11: The Supreme Court has stayed the reinstatement of IAS officer Rinku Dhugga, who was compulsorily retired by the Centre following a controversy over the alleged closure of Delhi's Thyagaraj Stadium to facilitate her dog-walking.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notice to Dhugga on the Centre's plea challenging the Delhi High Court judgment that had set aside her compulsory retirement.
"In the meantime, the reinstatement of the respondent shall remain stayed," the bench said in its September 7 order.
The matter has been posted for further hearing on October 13. The Centre was represented by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati.
Dhugga had earlier challenged the Centre's compulsory retirement order before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which directed her reinstatement.
The Delhi 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. Photographs and reports of the incident had triggered widespread public criticism.
The High Court noted that the stadium episode had resulted in only a minor punishment in disciplinary proceedings. It also considered an allegation relating to Dhugga's unauthorised absence. Both issues had been cited in support of the decision to compulsorily retire her.
However, the High Court held that the review committee's recommendation for her compulsory retirement could not be sustained as it had failed to consider 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 previous years and the fact that she was under consideration for promotion.
The High Court also observed that compulsory retirement is intended to weed out officers considered "deadwood" from service and held that the principle did not apply to Dhugga's case.
