As per case facts, the appellant was enrolled in the Indian Army and discharged after nine years of service upon being diagnosed with Schizophrenia and his disability was certified by ... the Medical Board as constitutional, neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service; Consequently, his claim for disability pension was rejected by the pension authority and dismissed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, which primarily relied on the Medical Board's opinion that the disability was constitutional; The appellant challenged this rejection, arguing that the disease arose during service and his discharge based on an opinion lacking detailed reasons was invalid; The question arose whether the denial of disability pension and the discharge of the serviceman, on the basis of a Medical Board opinion that merely stated the disability was a "constitutional personality disorder" (Schizophrenia) without recording reasons for its conclusion as mandated by the regulations, could be sustained in law, especially when the disease manifested after induction and due to the need for a liberal approach in such beneficial schemes. Finally, the Supreme Court answered that no, the order of discharge and denial of disability pension based on a medical opinion without providing full reasons to support the opinion cannot be said to be valid, as the requirement for the Medical Board to specify reasons is "crucial, critical, decisive, and necessary" under Regulation 423(d); as the opinion was merely a conclusion without reasons, and considering the debilitating nature of Schizophrenia and the liberal approach required in beneficial schemes, the appeal was allowed, granting him the disability pension with arrears for the last three years, though his discharge order was not disturbed.