The Supreme Court has stayed the reinstatement of IAS officer Rinku Dhugga, whose compulsory retirement had been set aside by the Delhi High Court earlier
this year. Dhugga had faced controversy after she and her husband, also an IAS officer, were accused of having the Thyagaraj Stadium in Delhi cleared so she could walk her dog. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, issued notice to Dhugga on the Centre’s challenge to the Delhi High Court verdict. The matter will next be heard on October 13. The Supreme Court ordered that, until then, Dhugga’s reinstatement would remain stayed. The controversy dates back to May 2022, when Dhugga was serving as Delhi’s Secretary (Land and Building). She was accused of entering Thyagaraj Stadium with her pet after regular visiting hours. A disciplinary charge-sheet was subsequently issued against her in February 2023 for imposition of a minor penalty. Her husband, also a senior civil servant, was charge-sheeted over the same incident and was eventually awarded a minor punishment. However, the Centre’s decision to compulsorily retire Dhugga in August 2023 was based on a broader review of her service record and not solely on the stadium controversy. Dhugga, an AGMUT-cadre IAS officer who joined the service in 1994, challenged the retirement before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The CAT set aside the order in August 2025, following which the Union government approached the Delhi High Court. In its April 15, 2026 judgment, the Delhi High Court dismissed the Centre’s challenge and upheld the tribunal’s decision. The court noted that Dhugga had strong recent performance gradings and that there was no allegation questioning her integrity or efficiency. It also questioned why her service record had been subjected to a more extensive scrutiny than those of other officers considered by the review committee. The review committee had cited several grounds while recommending her premature retirement, including adverse remarks, instances of unauthorised absence, non-promotion and non-empanelment, besides pending disciplinary proceedings. The High Court, however, held that the decision to compulsorily retire her was legally and factually flawed. The Centre has now challenged that ruling before the Supreme Court, bringing the long-running service dispute back before the top court.
