The most infamous dog walk in Indian bureaucracy is back in court. Three years after athletes alleged they were asked to vacate Delhi's Thyagaraj Stadium so a senior AGMUT officer and her husband could walk their dog, the Supreme Court has stayed her return to service.
The Supreme Court has stayed the reinstatement of senior AGMUT cadre officer Rinku Dhugga, who was compulsorily retired from service following the controversy. Her compulsory retirement was set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal on May 7, 2025, a decision later upheld by Delhi High Court on April 15, 2026. The Union government challenged the reinstatement order before the Supreme Court.
Issuing notice to the 1994-batch officer on the Centre's plea, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said: "In the meantime, the reinstatement of the respondent shall remain stayed." The order, passed on September 7 and made public now, allowed two weeks for the officer to respond and posted the matter for further hearing on October 13.
Dhugga had faced public criticism in 2022 after athletes at Thyagraj Stadium complained that they were allegedly asked to leave before their scheduled practice so she and her husband, also a serving AGMUT officer, could use the track. Following the controversy, both officers were transferred out of Delhi and Dhugga joined as principal secretary in Arunachal Pradesh. On August 7, 2023, she was served with an order of compulsory retirement by the Department of Personnel and Training.
The Centre, represented by additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati, informed the court that the High Court had failed to consider the serious grounds on which the review committee had recommended Dhugga's compulsory retirement. ASG Bhati said the committee took into consideration confidential appraisal reports and remarks made by supervisory authorities between 2014-15 and 2018-19.
The committee observed that Dhugga showed a continuous tendency to proceed on unauthorised leave without obtaining prior approval from the competent authority during her service tenure. For 2014-15 and 2015-16, then Delhi LG Najeeb Jung recorded adverse remarks describing Dhugga as "unreliable", "non-punctual" and an "average officer". In the 2017-19 period, then Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal recorded in her service files that she "lacked commitment, sense of responsibility in official dispensation" and had a "laidback attitude" and "insensitiveness towards public interest".
The High Court, however, noted that except for these adverse remarks, her grading in previous years was outstanding which made her eligible for promotion. Further, the High Court was of the view that compulsory retirement intended to weed out "deadwood" from service, a description it found inapplicable to Dhugga.
The SC stay reopens the debate on FR 56(j) - is weeding out about overall average, or about a pattern of indiscipline? Outstanding ACRs vs unauthorised leave, who wins?