Judgment: RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. 1. The appellant while functioning as Manager of the second respondent Co-operative Bank was found involved in irregularities that lead to his suspension, and enquiry into the misconduct, finding guilty and punishment by way of dismissal. However, in appeal the appellate authority converted the dismissal to one of compulsory retirement. Since compulsory retirement itself amounts to removal from service dis-entitling the employee from getting pension, the Assistant Registrar refused to forward the service papers for grant of pension to the Co-operative Pension Board. However, when the appellant questioned it in this Court, this court held that even if an employee is removed from service, he is entitled to be considered for compassionate allowance under Proviso to Clause 18(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees' Self Financing Pension Scheme - 1994 (herein after called the Pension Scheme). Pursuant to the Division Bench judgement vide Ext.P7, the Pension Board considered the appellant's claim and granted compassionate allowance at the rate of Rs.6,241/-per month in terms of Proviso to Clause 18(2) of the Scheme. Appellant's case is that since the punishment was converted from dismissal to compulsory retirement, appellant is entitled to full pension under the Pension Scheme. However, the Writ Petition filed for a direction in this regard was dismissed by the Single Bench, against which this Writ Appeal is filed. We heard Advocate Shri. M. Saseendran for the appellant and Standing Counsel for the Pension Board. 2. The eligibility for pension is contained in Clause 18 under Chapter III of the Pension Scheme which is extracted hereunder:- "18. Eligibility for Pension:- (1) Every employee of a society to which this Scheme applies shall, subject to the other provisions of the Scheme, be eligible for pension under this Scheme; Provided that an employee, who has received the contributory Provident Fund shall be eligible for pension only on the refund of that portion of the employers' contribution in the Contributory Provident Fund together with interest thereon to the Pension Fund before applying for pension. (2) An employee who has been dismissed or removed for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency shall not be eligible for pension; Provided that the authority to impose such penalty may, recommend to the Board to grant compassionate allowance to the employee so dismissed or removed in deserving cases; Provided further that such compassionate allowance shall not exceed two third of the pension which would have been admissible to him, had he retired on the date of dismissal or removal, as the case may be." 3. What is clear from the main clause of the above provision is that an employee who is dismissed or removed for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency shall not be eligible for pension. However, the rigour of this provision is diluted by the first Proviso which gives discretion to the authority which imposes the penalty to recommend to the Pension Board to grant compassionate allowance to the employee which is subject to the ceiling of two third of the eligible pension as provided under the second Proviso. In this case, after the first round of litigation leading to Ext.P7 judgment of the Division Bench, the Pension Board based on the recommendation of the second respondent granted the maximum of two third of the pension towards compassionate allowance to the appellant which he is receiving every month. The dispute raised by the Appellant before the Single Bench which was turned down by him and now pressed before us is that the Appellant is entitled to full pension because the punishment for misconduct was converted by the appellate authority from dismissal to compulsory retirement. Counsel appearing for the Pension Board opposed the claim stating that the Appellant is entitled only to compassionate allowance under the first Proviso and that is the scope of the decision of the Division Bench rendered vide Ext.P7 in appellant's own case in the first round of litigation. 4. Shri. M. Saseendran, counsel appearing for the appellant referred to the observations of the Division Bench in Ext.P7 judgment and submitted that the conversion of punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement itself will entitle the appellant to get pension which means full pension. 4. Shri. M. Saseendran, counsel appearing for the appellant referred to the observations of the Division Bench in Ext.P7 judgment and submitted that the conversion of punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement itself will entitle the appellant to get pension which means full pension. However, the counsel for the Pension Board referred to Ext.P7 as a whole and submitted that direction was issued with specific reference to proviso to Clause 18(2) of the Pension Scheme which means that appellant is entitled to be considered only for such allowance and not for full pension. After hearing both sides and going through the judgment (Ext.P7) we find that the Division Bench did not decide on Appellant's entitlement for pension under the Pension Scheme but the matter was remanded to the Authorities to consider grant of pension or compassionate allowance in terms of the Pension Scheme. We have already noticed that Sub-clause 2 of Clause 18 (2) of the Pension Scheme is an absolute prohibition against grant of pension to any employee dismissed or removed for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency. However, the contention raised by the Appellant's counsel is that compulsory retirement does not amount to removal from service as referred to in Clause 18(2) of the Pension Scheme. We are unable to accept this proposition canvassed by the appellant's counsel because Rule 198(1) of the Co-operative Societies Rules provided two punishments in Clauses (g) and (h) which are compulsory retirement and dismissal from service. There can be no dispute that both these punishments ultimately lead to removal from service of an employee who should in the normal course retire from service on superannuation or may resign from service. In all cases when the service of an employee is terminated against his wish and will, the same amounts to removal from service. So much so, in our view, both dismissal and compulsory retirement amount to removal from service within the meaning of Clause 18(2) of the Pension Scheme. However, what is stated in Clause 18(2) is that the disability for pension is only for dismissal or removal from service "for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency". We do not know whether an employee can be dismissed or removed for any other ground other than the three grounds referred to in Sub-clause 2 of Clause 18(2) of the Pension Scheme. However, what is stated in Clause 18(2) is that the disability for pension is only for dismissal or removal from service "for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency". We do not know whether an employee can be dismissed or removed for any other ground other than the three grounds referred to in Sub-clause 2 of Clause 18(2) of the Pension Scheme. Irrespective of whether, there can be dismissal or removal of the employee from service for any other reason, if the removal or dismissal is for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency, then such employee is not entitled to pension under the Pension Scheme. Admittedly, the appellant was originally dismissed for misconduct and in appeal the punishment was only converted into compulsory retirement and so much so, he is not entitled to pension under Clause 18(2) of the Pension Scheme. As already stated, an employee removed from service and found ineligible for pension can be considered for grant of compassionate allowance under the Proviso to the said Clause by the Authority imposing the punishment. This Proviso vests powers on the authority imposing the punishment to take into account the service records of an employee involved in misconduct and if it is satisfied that considering the meritorious service rendered by such employee for long duration in his or her career, the misconduct does not justify complete denial of pensionary benefits to him or her such Authority should recommend to the Pension Board to give compassionate allowance upto two third of the eligible pension. 5. The Second proviso to Clause 18(2) of the Pension Scheme does not specify as to whether the authority imposing the punishment should recommend, the extent of compassionate allowance within the limit of two third of the eligible pension to be granted to the employee or whether it is the discretion of the Pension Board. The disbursement of pension as well as compassionate allowance are actually approved by the Pension Board. However, compassionate allowance can be granted only on recommendation by the disciplinary authority which imposed the punishment that disentitled the employee for pension under the first proviso to Clause 18(2) of the Pension Scheme. The disbursement of pension as well as compassionate allowance are actually approved by the Pension Board. However, compassionate allowance can be granted only on recommendation by the disciplinary authority which imposed the punishment that disentitled the employee for pension under the first proviso to Clause 18(2) of the Pension Scheme. When the second proviso is read along with the powers conferred under first proviso on the disciplinary Authority which imposed the punishment we feel it is for the said Authority to recommend the extent of pension subject to the ceiling of two third that could be given as Compassionate Allowance. This is because the Pension Board is not the authority which is aware of the service rendered by the employee concerned during his career and his entitlement to be treated with compassion in spite of disability for pension which only disciplinary authority will know. So much so, in our view the recommendation of eligibility for compassionate allowances and also the extent of compassionate allowance by the authority imposing the punishment are binding on the Pension Board. Therefore, in every case covered by Clause 18(2) dis-entitling an employee for pension, it is up to the authority imposing the punishment to take stock of the whole service and performance of the employee and recommend compassionate allowance if found eligible upto a maximum of two third of the eligible pension. However, we make it clear that, the entitlement for compassionate allowance is completely a matter of discretion within the powers of the authority imposing the punishment. In other words compassionate allowance is not a right or entitlement of every employee removed from service and the only right is the right to be considered by the authority imposing the punishment for eligibility for allowance and the extent of it. 6. As already stated, the discretion has to be exercised by the authority imposing the punishment by taking into account the performance of the employee during his career as a whole and the compassionate allowance to be recommended should certainly be in proportion to the entitlement. 6. As already stated, the discretion has to be exercised by the authority imposing the punishment by taking into account the performance of the employee during his career as a whole and the compassionate allowance to be recommended should certainly be in proportion to the entitlement. Even though, in this case, the Board of the Society has not considered the entitlement of the appellant in detail or recommended the extent of compassionate allowance to be granted which is the requirement of the second proviso, we feel, there is no scope for sending the matter back to them because appellant is granted the maximum extent of compassionate allowance up to 2/3rd of the eligible pension. So much so, we do not think the appellant is entitled to get anything more than what is granted to him. Consequently, we dismiss the writ appeal upholding the finding of single Judge that an employee removed from service even by compulsory retirement is not entitled to full pension but is only entitled to get compassionate allowance subject to a ceiling of 2/3rd of the pension that too only based on recommendation of the Authority imposing the punishment.