New Delhi, April 16 -- Three decades after he was dismissed from service in what the Supreme Court has now found to be an unsustainable exercise of power, a former Indian Air Force officer will finally receive the dignity of a formal farewell. In a rare order, the Supreme Court on Wednesday directed that the septuagenarian be given a formal ceremonial send-off, declaring that for a soldier, "restoration of honour remains the foremost concern." A bench of justices Dipankar Datta and KV Viswanathan set aside former squadron leader R Sood's 1993 dismissal, holding that the decision-making process was flawed and legally untenable. "We restore it with the direction that on a date to be fixed by the Chief of Air Staff, the appellant shall be signed off in the normal manner he would have otherwise been entitled to, but for the order of dismissal," the court said. The court also granted him substantial service benefits, including 50% back wages, notional promotion, pensionary benefits, and interest on dues. Sood was dismissed from service on September 22, 1993 under Section 19 of the Air Force Act after being held guilty of misconduct linked to a 1987 incident in which a civilian driver was allegedly abandoned in a remote desert location, where his remains were later found. However, the Supreme Court found that the foundation of the disciplinary action itself was deeply flawed. Crucially, Sood had earlier been discharged by a criminal court due to lack of evidence -- a fact the bench said placed him in a stronger position than even an acquitted person. The court took serious exception to the Air Force authorities' understanding of the law, noting that discharge signifies absence of material to proceed with a trial and cannot justify subsequent punitive administrative action based on the same facts. It also flagged glaring inconsistencies in the treatment of officers involved. While Sood faced the extreme penalty of dismissal, his commanding officer, who had issued instructions forming part of the same chain of events, was let off with a comparatively minor punishment of "severe displeasure". The bench said the principle of equality had been violated. It emphasised that a subordinate officer could not be singled out for harsher punishment....