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 Be