Civil Law– Ex Parte Suit – Framing of Issues – Points for Determination – Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell – Respondent-defendant failed to appear throughout proceedings – Trial Court dismissed the suit ex parte for failure of the Appellant-plaintiff to prove title of the Respondent – No issue on title was framed – Appellate Court and High Court affirmed the dismissal – Held: Though framing of issues is not mandatory in ex parte proceedings by virtue of Order XIV Rule 1(6) CPC, the court is nonetheless obligated to determine "points for determination" in terms of Order XX Rule 4(2) CPC and address them in the judgment – Omission to frame issues on title, which was never pleaded or contested, caused prejudice to the Appellant who had no notice or opportunity to lead evidence thereon – Judgments and decrees of both courts below set aside – Matter remanded to Trial Court [Paras 2, 11, 26, 31, 32].

Valid Judgment – Essential Requirements – Ex Parte Proceedings – A judgment must contain a concise statement of the case, points for determination, decision thereon, and reasons for such decision in terms of Order XX Rule 4(2) CPC – Even in default or ex parte suits, the court must identify the legal points and give reasoned answers – Simply granting or refusing a decree on default without framing points for determination and reasoning is a material irregularity – A judgment must be a self-contained document from which it appears what the facts were, what controversy was tried, and how it was resolved [Paras 16, 20, 23].

Points for Determination – Nature and Function – Points for determination in a judgment correspond to issues framed during trial under Order XIV CPC – They focus the judgment on exact matters in controversy, guide the parties and the appellate court, and ensure every controverted issue is addressed – A judgment that omits discussion of issues in dispute is defective – Even when a defendant does not appear or file a written statement, the court cannot dispense with points for determination altogether [Paras 21, 22, 23].

Framing of Issues – Omission – Test for Prejudice – Though framing of issues in an ex parte suit is not mandatory, omission to do so may vitiate the trial if it causes prejudice to the parties – Test for prejudice is whether the party had knowledge that a particular question was in issue and had opportunity to lead evidence on it – Where a question is neither pleaded nor contested and no issue is framed thereon, the plaintiff cannot be expected to prove such fact – In the absence of any issue or pleading contesting title of the vendor in a suit for specific performance, plaintiff could not be expected to prove vendor's title [Paras 24, 25, 28, 31].

Specific Performance – Essential Ingredients – Proof – A plaintiff seeking specific performance must prove: a valid and subsisting contract, breach thereof by the defendant, and readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract – In the present case all three essentials were present, yet suit dismissed on title which was neither a pleaded defence nor a framed issue – Held: Dismissal on such ground unsustainable [Paras 29, 30, 31].

Decision: Civil Appeal disposed of – Judgments and decrees of both courts below set aside – Matter remanded to Trial Court for fresh consideration – Trial Court to issue notice to Respondent, complete pleadings, frame issues, and afford opportunity to parties to lead evidence – Appellant to appear before Trial Court on 04/05/2026 – No order as to costs.

Preventive Detention – COFEPOSA Act – Gold Smuggling – Dismissal of SLPs – Detenus alleged to have facilitated disposal of foreign-marked gold bars on multiple occasions – Detention Orders passed under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA Act on 22.04.2025 – Division Bench of Karnataka High Court upheld the Detention Orders – Supreme Court finds adequate procedural compliance by detaining authority in passing the Detention Orders – Held: Both Special Leave Petitions dismissed [Paras 1, 35-36].

Legal Assistance Before Advisory Board – Section 8(e) of COFEPOSA Act – Article 22(3)(b) of Constitution – Detenu has no right to be represented by legal practitioner before Advisory Board as a matter of right – Right to legal assistance arises only when Detaining Authority itself participates through a legal practitioner or legal adviser before the Advisory Board – Officers merely producing records and assisting the Advisory Board do not trigger this right – Request of detenu for legal assistance before Advisory Board rightly rejected – Held: Rejection of legal assistance does not vitiate the detention proceedings [Paras 19, 21].

Supply of Relied Upon Documents – Pen Drive Containing CCTV Footage – Substantial Compliance – Contents of pen drive displayed to detenus on a laptop inside prison before making representations – Pen drive offered to representatives of detenus – Prison rules do not permit electronic gadgets to detenues – Detenus did not renew request for further display after initial viewing – Held: Non-supply of pen drive does not amount to non-furnishing of relied upon documents; contention rejected as afterthought – Distinguished: Smitha Gireesh v. Union of India & Ors., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3697 [Paras 26, 28-29].

Representations – Disposal by Competent Authority – Communication through Same Official – Representations of detenu Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya dated 05.05.2025 and 08.05.2025 duly considered by Joint Secretary, COFEPOSA and Director General, CEIB respectively – Communications of rejection signed by Director, COFEPOSA held to be a mere ministerial act of conveying the decision of the competent authority – Held: Communication of rejection by same officer does not render the disposal incompetent or illegal [Paras 30-31].

Subjective Satisfaction – Live and Proximate Link – Detenu in Custody – Detention Order clearly records imminent possibility of release on bail – Prior occurrences of disposal of foreign-marked gold bars established with adequate particulars in grounds of detention – Live and proximate link between last transaction on 14.02.2025 and the incident on 03.03.2025 duly established qua detenu Shri Sahil Sarkariya Jain – Held: Subjective satisfaction of Detaining Authority cannot be faulted [Paras 32, 34].

Habeas Corpus – Fresh Grounds – Strict Pleadings Not Applicable – Fresh grounds can be raised before the Supreme Court in a petition challenging detention order – However, such fresh grounds must still withstand factual scrutiny – Held: Even fresh grounds raised before the Supreme Court do not benefit the petitioners in light of substantial compliance by the authorities [Paras 23-25].

Decision: Both Special Leave Petitions dismissed – Pending applications disposed of – No order as to costs.

Constitutional Law – Contempt of Court – Non-Compliance of Supreme Court Directions – Electoral Reforms – Asset Disclosure by Legislators – Petitioner alleged contempt on the ground that directions issued in WP (C) No. 784 of 2015, requiring a permanent mechanism to monitor asset growth of MPs/MLAs/MLCs exceeding 100% and amendment of Form 26 under the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, had not been implemented – Union submitted that Lok Sabha Secretariat reiterated legal and practical constraints in creating a monitoring committee, stating it would conflict with parliamentary practices and the jurisdiction of the Lokpal under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 – A joint framework between the Election Commission and CBDT for verification of asset disclosures was noted to already exist – Held: No contempt made out – Petition disposed of [Paras 6–8].

Electoral Disqualification – Non-Disclosure of Assets – Undue Influence – Directions in WP (C) No. 784 of 2015 recalled: non-disclosure of assets and sources of income by candidates and their associates constitutes corrupt practice amounting to undue influence under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Form 26 directed to be amended to include information relating to statutory disqualifications under Sections 8, 8-A, 9, 9-A, 10 and 10-A of the RP Act and contracts with appropriate government [Para 3].

Decision: Contempt Petition disposed of – No contempt found – Union's explanation regarding institutional constraints and existing framework accepted.

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Section 482 BNSS – Sexual Harassment and Rape Allegations – Cross-FIRs – Appellant, a businessman, accused by former employee/respondent-complainant of offences under Sections 351(2), 64, 74, 75 and 79 read with Section 3(5) BNS and Section 67A IT Act – High Court declined anticipatory bail to appellant alone while granting it to co-accused, citing serious nature of offences and appellant's position and affluence raising risk of witness influence and evidence tampering – Supreme Court, having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances including prior interim protection granted, made the interim order absolute and allowed the appeal – Held: Appellant entitled to relief under Section 482 BNSS [Paras 2, 10, 22–23].

Anticipatory Bail – Counter-Blast FIR – Financial Settlement Negotiations – Background Facts – Respondent-complainant was employed as Executive Assistant in appellant's company from 14.02.2024 and resigned on 15.05.2025 – Allegations of illicit relationship circulated on social media – A meeting held on 24.07.2025 at which, per appellant's version, a demand of Rs.30 crores was made and a part payment of Rs.50,000/- was transferred – Appellant thereafter lodged FIR No.1041/2025 for extortion – Respondent-complainant and her husband arrested and released on bail – FIR No.235/2025 against appellant lodged on 05.08.2025 in apparent counter-blast – Court noted that had the financial settlement concluded, no criminal proceedings would have been initiated against the appellant [Paras 3–8, 21].

Anticipatory Bail – Conditions – Cooperation with Investigation – While granting anticipatory bail, the Court imposed conditions that the appellant shall cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation, shall not misuse liberty, shall not influence witnesses or tamper with material on record – Directed that in the event of arrest, the Arresting Officer shall release the appellant on furnishing cash security of Rs.1,00,000/- with two like sureties – Infraction of conditions may entail cancellation of anticipatory bail [Paras 24–27].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order of the High Court dated 11.09.2025 set aside – Interim order dated 26.09.2025 made absolute – Anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions – Observations not to affect trial or other pending proceedings between parties.

Legal Aid – Systemic Delays – SOP for Translation and Transmission of Records – Article 21 and 39A of the Constitution – Proceeding originating from a death sentence matter in which inordinate delays in legal aid matters were noticed by the Court – Amicus curiae appointed; extensive deliberations held with SCLSC, NALSA, High Courts, and other stakeholders over several years – Court approves comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure (SOP-2025) for translation, transmission, and monitoring of case records in legal aid appeals/SLPs – Timelines under Heading 5 of the SOP declared binding – Held: Access to justice for convicts and undertrial prisoners is a constitutional obligation under Articles 21 and 39A; structural gaps in the legal aid filing process must be addressed through enforceable timelines and accountability mechanisms [Paras 6, 10, 11].

Legal Aid – Constitutional Basis – Right to Counsel – Article 39A of the Constitution – Article 39A, inserted by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act 1976, directs the State to provide free legal aid so that no individual is denied access to justice due to economic or other disadvantages – Courts have linked legal aid to Article 21, interpreting it to include fair legal procedures and access to legal representation – Legal aid in India is not merely a matter of policy but a constitutional responsibility – Prisoners do not surrender their fundamental rights at the prison gate [Para 6, 7].

SOP – Categorisation of Cases – Priority Framework – Cases categorised into Category A1 (death sentence, life imprisonment, sentences of ten years or more, juveniles), Category A2 (civil cases involving demolition, eviction, custody of children, MTP), Category B (sentences less than ten years but more than one year), and Category C (all other civil and criminal cases with sentences of one year or less) – Category A1 mandates mandatory daily status updates during initial 15 days post-judgment – Escalation protocol available for re-categorisation upon review [Para 8 – SOP Clause 3].

SOP – Translation Standards and Documentation – Priority Documents – Translation to commence immediately upon admission of appeal/receipt of convict's consent/acknowledgment of legal aid eligibility – Priority documents to be translated first include judgment, statements of at least two principal witnesses, FIR and chargesheet, relevant exhibits, bail applications, and convict's personal details – Remaining records to be fully translated within 60 days of filing – Every translated document to contain unique reference number, page-wise cross-references, Certificate of True Translation, and Declaration of Non-Association – Translations to be in searchable PDF format, watermarked for authenticity [Para 8 – SOP Clause 4].

SOP – Translator Engagement – Recruitment and Oversight – All High Courts directed to create and sanction regular or contractual posts of Translators and Translation Supervisors not less than one-third of the judge strength of the respective High Courts, and fill all posts within 90 days of vacancy – Minimum eligibility for Translators: Bachelor's degree in source language or English with preference for LL.B., minimum two years of legal translation experience – Minimum eligibility for Translation Supervisors: Post Graduate Diploma in Translation and LL.B. with minimum five years of experience – Translations to be verified within 15 to 30 days of submission; delay to invite explanation – Court observes that poor quality of translation has engaged its attention on several occasions, indicating need for structural change; High Courts directed to examine and decide on paragraph 6 of the SOP within four weeks [Paras 8, 12 – SOP Clause 6].

SOP – Digital Coordination – Monitoring and Accountability – SCLSC, HCLSCs, and jail authorities to integrate into a unified digital platform with real-time tracking dashboards, automated reminders, role-based access, and audit logs – Monitoring Committees to be constituted at each High Court and the Supreme Court comprising senior advocates of repute – Committees to meet fortnightly and submit monthly reports to SCLSC/NALSA – National Informatics Centre directed to create seamless unified digital platform within two months – NALSA Member Secretary designated as nodal officer to oversee implementation and periodic review of SOP [Paras 9, 13, 15 – SOP Clauses 7, 8].

SOP – Delay Explanation Format – Mandatory Checklist – A standardised checklist tracking dates of upload of impugned order, communication to convict, consent to file, transmission of translated documents, appointment of lawyer, handover of documents, and actual date of filing to be incorporated forthwith into all applications seeking condonation of delay filed by HCLSCs – Two weeks granted for incorporation; any appeal filed thereafter by HCLSC to necessarily contain the same [Paras 14 – SOP Clause 13].

Directions – Copy to High Courts – Compliance Report – Copy of order directed to be circulated to Registrars General of all High Courts for placing before Chief Justices and Executive Chairpersons of State Legal Services Committees – Status/compliance report to be filed by all concerned institutions including NIC by 30th April 2026 – Matter listed for further consideration on 4th May 2026 [Paras 10, 15, 16].

Decision: Order passed issuing directions on legal aid – Timelines under Heading 5 of SOP-2025 declared binding – Directions issued for constitution of Monitoring Committees, creation of unified digital platform, and incorporation of delay explanation format – Matter listed for compliance on 04/05/2026.

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC – Distinction – Appellants filed a second suit (OS No. 2320/2013) challenging the Power of Attorney dated 04.11.2011 as illegal and void, obtained by fraud, coercion and undue influence, and seeking permanent injunction against alienation of suit properties — Respondents-defendants sought rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC contending the suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC as the cause of action was identical to that of the first suit (OS No. 4722/2012) — Trial Court dismissed the rejection application and granted interim injunction — High Court reversed, holding both suits arose from the same cause of action and that plaintiffs were aware of the Power of Attorney — Held by Supreme Court: Order II Rule 2 CPC does not bar the filing of a suit but only curtails the right to sue for claims relinquished or reliefs omitted in an earlier suit; such a plea cannot be a ground for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC without evidence being led — High Court's approach of analysing averments of the second suit as evidence was improper [Paras 5.17–5.21, 7–8].

Order II Rule 2 CPC – Nature and Applicability – Cause of Action – Order II Rule 2 CPC is founded on the principle that a defendant shall not be vexed twice for the same cause of action — The bar under Order II Rule 2(2) and (3) operates only where the subsequent suit is in respect of the same cause of action as the earlier suit and the plaintiff had omitted to claim reliefs or relinquished claims without leave of court — To invoke the bar, the defendant must establish by evidence: (i) identity of cause of action in both suits; (ii) entitlement to more than one relief on such cause of action; and (iii) omission to claim such relief without leave of court — The technical bar cannot be presumed on inferential reasoning alone — The cause of action means every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to support his right to judgment, and if evidence required to support the claims in the two suits is different, the causes of action are also different [Paras 5.4, 5.7, 5.9–5.12].

Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – Bar by Law – Meaning – Distinction from Order II Rule 2 – Order VII Rule 11(d) requires that the suit must appear from the statement in the plaint itself to be barred by any law — The bar must be express or implied and discernible on a meaningful reading of the plaint and annexed documents — Under Order II Rule 2, the right to sue for certain claims is taken away but the filing of the suit as such is not barred by law — Application of Order II Rule 2 to a case may result in rejection of certain reliefs or even dismissal of the suit after evidence, but does not result in rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) — A plea under Order II Rule 2 cannot be adjudicated at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 without recording evidence [Paras 5.13, 5.17–5.21, 7].

Cause of Action – Two Suits – First Suit vs. Second Suit – The first suit (OS No. 4722/2012) was filed by the parents seeking permanent injunction against the son from interfering with possession of the Chennai property and bank account — The second suit (OS No. 2320/2013) was filed after the death of M. Sokkalingam by his widow and daughters seeking declaration that the Power of Attorney dated 04.11.2011 was illegal and void along with consequential injunction against alienation of the Ooty (Nilgiris) and Pudukottai properties — The causes of action, properties involved, parties, and reliefs claimed in the two suits were distinct — The cause of action for the second suit arose upon the death of M. Sokkalingam on 13.03.2013 — High Court erred in holding that the cause of action was one and the same [Paras 1.2–1.10, 8–8.1].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order of the Madras High Court set aside – Order of the Trial Court in OS No. 2320/2013 restored along with the plaint – All observations confined to disposal of the appeal and not to bear on the merits of the suit – Parties to bear respective costs [Para 9].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Liability of Directors – Liquidation Under IBC – Effect on Cheque Dishonour Proceedings – Petitioners, as directors and authorised signatories of the accused company, issued a post-dated cheque towards repayment of a loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- – Cheque was dishonoured on 14.12.2018 – Complaint under Section 138 NI Act was filed on 18.02.2019 – Subsequent liquidation order was passed against the company on 08.04.2019 – Trial Court allowed the application for discharge holding that petitioners, having lost their directorial positions post-liquidation, could not be held liable – High Court set aside the discharge order, holding that liability under Section 138 NI Act subsists despite initiation of insolvency and liquidation proceedings under the IBC – Held: No ground for interference with the High Court's order; SLP dismissed – All other contentions on both sides left open to be advanced before the Trial Court.

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed — impugned order of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench dated 01.10.2025 upheld — all other contentions left open before the Trial Court — pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Consumer Law – Banking – Deficiency in Service – Cheque Collection – Stale Cheques – Compensation – Bank received two CTS cheques aggregating Rs. 1,06,10,768 from the respondent for collection, both dated 03.03.2018 and deposited on 29.05.2018 – Cheques were returned on 30.05.2018 due to bank strike – Bank failed to re-present the cheques on 01.06.2018 or 02.06.2018 (both working days), despite the cheques' validity expiring on 02.06.2018 – Cheques were eventually re-presented only on 04.06.2018 and 08.06.2018 by which time they had become stale – National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held deficiency in service and awarded 10% of total cheque amount with 8% interest p.a. – Supreme Court upheld finding of deficiency but reduced compensation to 6% of total cheque amount with interest at 6% p.a. from date of filing of complaints – Held: A bank receiving cheques for collection acts as agent of the customer and is under an obligation to exercise due diligence in presenting the instruments within the prescribed validity period – Failure to do so, in the absence of reasonable explanation, constitutes negligence and deficiency in service under consumer protection law [Paras 54–62].

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 75A – Delay in Presentment – Strike as Cause – Bank pleaded that delay in presentment was caused by a bank strike on 30.05.2018 and 31.05.2018, attracting the excuse under Section 75A – Held: Once the cause of delay ceases to operate, presentment must be made within a reasonable time – Working days of 01.06.2018 and 02.06.2018 were available to the bank – Bank offered no satisfactory explanation for failure to re-present the cheques on those days – Plea of Section 75A therefore unavailable to the appellant [Paras 33, 55–58].

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Deprivation of Remedy – IBC – Effect – Bank's deficiency in service extinguished the respondent's right to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act against the directors of the drawer company, Assotech Limited, which was undergoing corporate insolvency resolution – Held: Even if cheques had been dishonoured upon timely presentment, commission of an offence under Section 138 would have depended on service of demand notice and non-payment within 15 days – The ultimate outcome of such proceedings remains speculative, warranting only token compensation – Criminal proceedings under Section 138 are not stayed by Section 14 of the IBC and directors continue to be personally liable [Paras 51–52, 69].

Compensation – Quantum – Consumer Protection – Reasonableness – Commission awarded 10% of total cheque amount as token compensation – Supreme Court found this excessive in the peculiar facts – Held: Since the loss itself is indeterminate despite the finding of deficiency in service, compensation is to be assessed at 6% of total cheque amount to each complainant, with interest at 6% p.a. from date of filing of complaints – Compensation must be fair, reasonable and commensurate to the actual loss or injury – No hard and fast rule can be laid down and computation depends on facts of each case [Paras 63–72].

Decision: Civil appeals partly allowed – Finding of deficiency in service upheld – Compensation reduced from 10% to 6% of total cheque amount of Rs. 1,06,10,768 to each complainant, with interest at 6% p.a. from date of filing of complaints – Rest of impugned order undisturbed – No order as to costs.

Service Law – Air Force – Dismissal from Service – Administrative Action After Discharge by Criminal Court – Impermissibility – Appellant, commissioned as Pilot Officer in 1972, was posted as Senior Operations Officer – On the night of 29.03.1987, pursuant to instructions of his superior Wing Commander, he removed a GREF driver from the camp and left him at a secluded location; mortal remains of the driver were recovered on 02.04.1987 – Sessions Court discharged the appellant on 12.01.1990 finding no prima facie case and absence of sanction under Section 197 CrPC – Thereafter, administrative action was initiated on 30.10.1990 under Section 19 of the AF Act read with Rule 16 of the AF Rules – Appellant was dismissed from service on 22.09.1993 – Held: Where the Air Force elects to have the alleged offence tried by a criminal court under Section 124 of the AF Act, it cannot thereafter fall back on either a court martial or any disciplinary action – Once the road is chosen, the traveller must walk it to the end – Initiation of administrative proceedings for disciplinary action against the appellant was bad in law and non-est [Paras 24–28].

Service Law – Discharge vs. Acquittal – Discharge Stands on Higher Pedestal – The authority initiating action reasoned that since the appellant was merely "discharged" and neither acquitted nor convicted, administrative proceedings could still be initiated – Held: This understanding is fallacious – Discharge is a pre-trial termination of proceedings for lack of sufficient material to even frame charges; acquittal is a post-trial outcome – An accused discharged of a criminal offence stands on a better footing than an accused finally acquitted after a full-fledged trial – Once an accused is discharged, he is entitled to all benefits available to an acquitted person and cannot be placed in a less advantageous position – Ratio of Harjeet Singh Sandhu applies equally to cases of discharge [Paras 18–19, 26].

Service Law – Limitation – Section 121 of AF Act – Applicability to Administrative Action – The Single Judge held that administrative dismissal was barred by the three-year limitation under Section 121 of the AF Act – Division Bench reversed, relying on Harjeet Singh Sandhu, holding that Section 121 governs trial by court-martial and not administrative action under Rule 16 – Held: The Division Bench was correct on this point – Section 121 prescribes limitation only for commencement of court-martial and does not extend to administrative action – However, administrative action was independently impermissible for other reasons [Paras 3, 22].

Natural Justice – Disciplinary Proceedings – Absence of Regular Inquiry – Cryptic Rejection of Defence – Proceeding note dated 05.06.1992 recorded only "morally convincing evidence" against the appellant without any discussion on the merits or consideration of the specific contentions raised in the reply to the show cause notice – Held: Such an expression is vague and indeterminate and falls far short of the standard required in disciplinary proceedings – Where no regular inquiry is conducted and the delinquent is deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, the show cause notice, reply thereto and final order assume critical importance as the primary safeguards of natural justice – A cryptic or mechanical rejection that does not advert to specific contentions raised falls foul of natural justice and renders the decision arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 31–33].

Service Law – Punishment – Arbitrariness – Disparity Between Superior and Subordinate – Appellant was dismissed from service while the Wing Commander, who gave the direct order to remove the driver and later instructed suppression of truth, was awarded only "severe displeasure for 3 years" – Appellant acted pursuant to orders of his superior and there was no material to suggest any motive to harm the driver – Queries were repeatedly raised within the Government as to the rationale of the disparity but no satisfactory answer was forthcoming – The Wing Commander's lenient treatment was justified only by his superannuation – Held: When a comparatively less penalty is imposed upon an officer with a more significant role, such disparity ought to weigh with authorities while determining punishment of the subordinate – The principle of equality is violated when a subordinate officer is meted the harshest punishment for complying with a wrongful order of his superior while the latter who issued it receives lenient treatment – Ratio of Sengara Singh v. State of Punjab applies [Paras 35–37].

Relief – Back Wages – 50% Award – Notional Promotion – Pensionary Benefits – Appellant having crossed the age of superannuation, reinstatement not possible – Held: Entitled to (i) arrears of salary and allowances to the extent of 50% from 23.09.1993 till scheduled date of retirement, as no material on record shows appellant did not take up any employment after dismissal; (ii) notional promotion, case to be placed before Review Departmental Promotion Committee; (iii) pensionary benefits admissible in law – Financial benefits to carry interest at 9% p.a. from date of filing of writ petition before High Court till date of payment – Appellant to be "signed off" in the normal manner on a date fixed by Chief of Air Staff, so as to restore his honour [Paras 39–41].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned order of Division Bench of Delhi High Court set aside – Order of dismissal from service dated 22.09.1993 set aside – Directions issued for payment of 50% back wages with 9% interest, consideration for notional promotion, grant of pensionary benefits, and formal signing off – Compliance directed within 3 months from date of service of judgment – Parties to bear their own costs.