Delhi: SC stays reinstatement of IAS officer Rinku Dhugga in dog-walking controversy
Sep 11, 2026
New Delhi [India], September 11 : The Supreme Court has stayed the reinstatement of IAS officer Rinku Dhugga, who was compulsorily retired by the Centre following the 2022 controversy over the alleged emptying of Delhi’s Thyagaraj Stadium to facilitate her dog-walking.
A bench of 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 that upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) order directing her reinstatement.
“In the meantime, the reinstatement of the respondent shall remain stayed,” the bench said in its September 7 order.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on October 13.
Dhugga had challenged her compulsory retirement before the CAT, which ordered her reinstatement. The Delhi High Court subsequently upheld the CAT’s decision in its April 15 judgment.
The controversy arose in 2022 following allegations that Dhugga and her husband, also an IAS officer, had the Thyagaraj Stadium vacated so she could walk her dog. The allegations drew widespread public attention after photographs and media reports of the incident surfaced.
The High Court noted that the stadium-related incident had resulted in a minor punishment in disciplinary proceedings. It also considered an allegation concerning Dhugga’s unauthorised absence, both of which had been cited in connection with the decision to compulsorily retire her.
However, the High Court held that the review committee’s recommendation could not be sustained as it had failed to consider several relevant aspects of her service record, including the absence of adverse remarks in her Annual Performance Appraisal Reports, her outstanding grading in preceding years and the fact that she was being considered for promotion.
The High Court further observed that compulsory retirement is intended to remove officers considered “deadwood” from service and held that the principle did not apply to Dhugga’s case.