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.

Criminal Law - Abetment of Suicide - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 306 - Instigation and Mens Rea - Appellant challenged the order framing charges for abetting the suicide of Komal Sahu - Prosecution case based on alleged illicit relationship between appellant and deceased wife Revati Bai - Deceased was an alcoholic who committed suicide by hanging - No suicide note was left - Statements of family members suggested the wife insulted the deceased in front of the appellant - High Court dismissed the revision holding that prima facie ingredients were satisfied - Supreme Court perused the charge sheet and noted the appellant and deceased consumed liquor together two days before the suicide - Held - To sustain a charge under Section 306 IPC there must be a positive act of instigation or incitement revealing a clear mens rea to lead the victim to suicide - Allegations of an affair were hearsay and lacked proximity to the act - Requirements of Section 107 IPC not satisfied as no direct or indirect act of the appellant left the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide - Proceedings qua the appellant quashed - [Paras 1-15].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 306 - Inherent Jurisdiction - Principles laid down in R.P. Kapur vs State of Punjab and State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal - High Court can quash proceedings where allegations even if taken at face value do not constitute the offence - Prosecution under Section 306 IPC requires material of a definite nature rather than imaginary or inferential - Held - Courts must be extremely careful as the deceased is not available for cross-examination - In absence of specific allegations of instigation it would be hazardous to ask the accused to face trial - High Court erred in not quashing the proceedings despite lack of material - [Paras 8-14].

Evidence Law - Instigation - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 107 - Interpretation of Instigation - Reliance on Ramesh Kumar vs State of Chhattisgarh - Instigation means to goad-urge forward-provoke-incite or encourage to do an act - Not necessary that actual words be used but reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out - A word uttered in fit of anger without intending consequences is not instigation - Held - Mere addiction of deceased to liquor and general allegations of illicit relationship do not amount to a continued course of conduct creating circumstances for suicide - Proximity between the meeting of the appellant and the suicide was not established - [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Criminal appeal allowed – Order dated 08.04.2025 in CRR No. 450 of 2025 set aside – Charge framed against the appellant in Sessions Case No. 80 of 2024 stands quashed – Appellant discharged – Trial against accused No. 2 to proceed uninfluenced by observations.

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.

Civil Law - Property Dispute – Erroneous Judicial Observations – Correction – Title to property near Ulsoor Lake, Bengaluru disputed among three groups: the Muniswamappa group (Appellants), M/s Casablanca Estate (Respondent No. 1 claiming Sy No. 104), and the Chettiar group (Respondent Nos. 2–11 claiming Sy Nos. 102 and 103) – High Court in CRP No. 131/2022 erroneously recorded that Respondent No. 1 claimed ownership of the suit schedule property (Sy Nos. 102 and 103), when in fact Respondent No. 1 had consistently maintained that it owned a distinct property being Sy No. 104 and had been wrongly impleaded – Application under Section 152 CPC for correction of said observations dismissed by High Court – Supreme Court finds observations in paragraphs 6, 13, 14 and 18 of the impugned judgment to be prima facie erroneous and contrary to material on record – Held: Observations shall not be construed as a finding on title, identity, or location of the suit schedule property and shall not be relied upon by any party in any pending proceedings [Paras 2–3, 15–16, 25–27, 30].

Prior High Court Order – Mischaracterisation – Effect of Order Dated 20.02.2015 in WP No. 14279/2006 – High Court in impugned order recorded that the order dated 20.02.2015 "recognises ownership of Jayamma, predecessor in title of Defendant No. 14, and direction is issued to BBMP to mutate her name as owner of the schedule property" – Held: This characterisation is factually and legally incorrect – The order of 20.02.2015 expressly refrained from determining title, directed all parties to approach the civil court, and the direction to BBMP regarding Jayamma was limited to considering her application for katha in respect of the distinct property Sy No. 104 only [Paras 17, 21, 26, 30].

Identity of Property – Shared PID Number – Confusion Arising from Overlapping Municipal Identifiers – Respondent No. 1 contended that Sy No. 104 bore the same PID No. 81-86-1 as Sy Nos. 102 and 103, creating risk of one party's property being claimed as another's – Court noted this apprehension and directed that disputes regarding the concerned property shall be decided by the competent civil court on the basis of pleadings and evidence led by parties – Operative order rejecting plaint in OS No. 437/2020 not interfered with [Paras 20, 28, 30].

Decision: Appeals disposed of – Observations in paragraphs 6, 13, 14 and 18 of the impugned judgment of the High Court clarified and declared not to constitute a finding on title, identity, or location of the suit schedule property – Parties directed not to rely on said observations in any proceedings – Disputes to be adjudicated by the competent civil court – No order as to costs [Paras 30–32].

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– 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.

Tenancy Law – Eviction – Bonafide Need – Subsequent Events – Remand – Suit for eviction filed by legal heirs of the principal tenant against sub-tenant under Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act on the ground of bonafide need – Trial Court decreed the suit holding that premises were required for the privacy of the 87-year-old widow of the principal tenant – Appellate Court reversed the decree on the ground that the widow had since expired, thereby extinguishing the bonafide need – High Court dismissed writ petition under Article 227 solely on the ground that plaintiffs failed to file a rejoinder to the defendants' affidavit stating that the plaintiffs' own room was let out to third parties – Held: Dismissal solely on the ground of non-traverse of the defendants' affidavit is erroneous; all material on record including the affidavit ought to have been examined – High Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it – Order set aside and proceedings remanded to Trial Court [Paras 6, 7, 8].

Bonafide Need – Date of Determination – Subsequent Events – Adjudication of bonafide need to be done as on the date when the suit for eviction was filed – Subsequent events may be considered only if they are of such nature and dimension as to completely eclipse the landlord's need and make it lose its significance altogether – Landlord cannot be penalised for the slowness of the legal system – Subsequent event brought on record by way of affidavit cannot by itself be the sole basis for concluding that the landlord's bonafide need did not subsist, without examining the entire material on record – Trial Court to consider all material including subsequent events and decide suit on merits, uninfluenced by earlier observations [Paras 7, 8, 9].

Subsequent Events – Power of Court – Three Conditions – Power of Court to take note of subsequent events is well-settled – However, such power is subject to three conditions: firstly, the subsequent event should be brought promptly to the notice of the Court; secondly, it should be brought consistently with rules of procedure affording the opposite party an opportunity to meet or explain such events; and thirdly, the subsequent event must have a material bearing on the right to relief of any party [Para 7].

Decision: Civil Appeal allowed – Order dated 04/02/2025 in Writ Petition No. 1458 of 2003 set aside – Proceedings in R.A.E. Suit No. 70 of 1995 remanded to Small Causes Court, Mumbai for fresh adjudication – Parties granted liberty to amend pleadings and lead further evidence – Trial Court directed to endeavour to decide the suit within one year from the date the parties appear before it – Parties to appear before Small Causes Court, Mumbai on 22/04/2026 – No opinion expressed on merits – No order as to costs.

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.