Four years after athletes were asked to clear out of a Delhi stadium so an IAS officer could walk her dog, the case is still alive, and it just landed in the Supreme Court.
On September 7, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana stayed the reinstatement of IAS officer Rinku Dhugga, who had been compulsorily retired by the Centre over her role in the Thyagaraj Stadium controversy. The bench issued notice to Dhugga on the Centre’s challenge to a Delhi High Court judgment that had set aside her retirement. The next hearing is scheduled for October 13.
“In the meantime, the reinstatement of the respondent shall remain stayed,” the bench said in its order.
What Happened in 2022
The incident that started all of this became one of the more widely discussed bureaucratic controversies of recent years. In May 2022, it emerged that athletes and coaches training at the Thyagaraj Stadium in Delhi, a government facility, had been asked to leave early in the evening so that Sanjeev Khirwar, a senior IAS officer, and his wife Rinku Dhugga, also an IAS officer, could use the running track to walk their dog in private.
The public reaction was swift and sharp. Questions were raised about the use of public infrastructure by senior civil servants for personal convenience, and about how such a thing could happen at a facility meant for athletes. Within days, the Ministry of Home Affairs transferred Khirwar to Ladakh and Dhugga to Arunachal Pradesh. Disciplinary proceedings followed against both officers.
Dhugga was subsequently compulsorily retired by the Centre under FR 56(j) and Rule 48 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, provisions that allow the government to retire an officer in public interest.
The Legal Journey Since Then
Dhugga challenged her retirement before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which ordered her reinstatement. The Centre appealed. The Delhi High Court, in its April 15 judgment, upheld the CAT’s order in her favour.
The High Court examined the material considered by the Review Committee and found that the decision to compulsorily retire her could not be sustained on that basis. It noted that compulsory retirement is intended to remove officers considered to be “deadwood” from service, and held that this principle was not applicable to Dhugga’s case given her service record.
The Centre then moved the Supreme Court challenging that High Court judgment, which is where the case now sits.
What the Stay Means
The Supreme Court’s interim order means Dhugga cannot be reinstated while the case is pending. The Centre, represented by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, has argued that the High Court was wrong to set aside the retirement order, and the Supreme Court has at least found that argument worth examining.
Whether the stay eventually translates into a final ruling against reinstatement will depend on what the court decides after hearing both sides fully. The October 13 date will give a clearer sense of how quickly this moves.
For now, the case that began with a dog and a running track in South Delhi is sitting squarely before the country’s highest court, with no resolution in sight.
