K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The point that arises for consideration in this Appeal is whether a Government servant dismissed for a serious misconduct is eligible for compassionate pension under R. 5 of Part II of Kerala Service Rules. The relevant facts of the case are as follows:

2. The appellant who was a police constable was dismissed from service on 4.10.1970 for accepting an illegal gratification of Rs. 43/-. At the time of dismissal, he had about eighteen years of service. The appellant submitted Ext. P1 representation dated 21.9.1999 praying that he may be granted compassionate pension. The grounds, according to the appellant, justifying the grant of compassionate pension were stated in Ext. P1. According to him, he is living in penury. He is having a family consisting of his wife and five children. His three sons are unemployed. His wife is suffering from cancer and is undergoing treatment at Regional Cancer Centre. He has incurred a huge debt for her treatment. He is also not keeping good health. On coming to know of the existence of the rule in the nature of R. 5(a), he represented on 19.1.1998 praying for the grant of compassionate allowance. It was followed by Ext. P1 representation dated 21.9.1999.

3. The claim of the appellant was rejected by the first respondent Government by a communication dated 1.12.1999. The ground for rejection was that he was removed from service for the acceptance of illegal gratification. Therefore, his claim for compassionate pension is rejected.

4. The appellant challenged Ext. P2 by filing OP No. 31025/2000 which was dismissed in limine by the learned Single Judge by the judgment under appeal, holding that there is no ground to interfere with the decision of the Government.

5. The rule which governs grant of compassionate allowance is R. 5(a) which reads as follows:

“5. Misconduct or inefficiency:-

(a) No pension may be granted to an employee dismissed or removed for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency, but to employees so dismissed or removed, compassionate allowances may be granted when they are deserving of special consideration, provided that the allowances granted to any employee shall not exceed two-thirds of the pension which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on the date of dismissal or removal”.

6. A reading of the rule will show that persons dismissed or removed from service on the ground of misconduct are also eligible for compassionate allowance. Acceptance of illegal gratification is a misconduct and basing on the said misconduct, the appellant has been removed from service also. It is evident from the rule that persons like the appellant who are removed from service for misconduct are also eligible to receive compassionate allowance, provided other conditions are satisfied. The mere fact that he is removed from service for a misconduct will not result in his application being rejected at the threshold. R. 5(a) is not meant for virtuous persons, but on the contrary, it is meant to ameliorate the conditions of sinners dismissed from service. The mere fact that his removal was due to a serious misconduct, appears to us not to conclude the issue. Many other circumstances may be relevant in deciding the claim for compassionate allowance. If an employee has amassed wealth by receiving bribe, his claim for compassionate allowance can be justifiably rejected on that ground alone. There may be cases where dismissal was for a solitary fall from virtue. In our social conditions, a punishment to an employee is in fact a punishment for his wife and children also. The circumstances pleaded by the appellant about the health of his wife and the state of unemployment of his children may not be out of context in deciding the payment of compassionate allowances. The financial position can be got verified through the revenue officials. He is one who has served the Government about eighteen years. The Government while passing Ext. P2 order has not taken into account vario