“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 appelllant 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 compassionabte allowance, provided other conditions are satisfied. The mere fact that he is removed from service for 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 serioius 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 amssed wealth by receiving bribe, his claim for compasssionate allowance can be justifiably rejected on that ground alone. There may be cases wehre 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 circumstancespleaded 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 throught the revenue officials. He is one who has served the Government about eighteen years. The Government while passing Ext.P-2 order has not taken into account various relevant factors. The Government failed to bear in mind that rule is also meant for the benefit of unworthy fellows who are dismissed from service for serious misconduct. But, even in their case, there may be extenuating circumstances to pay compassionate allowance, alebit they are unfit to be retained in service. Going by “Wednesbury principle”, the omission to take into account relevant factors and taking into account irrelevant factors render a decision ultra vires. In the instant case, for the failure to take into account various relevant factors, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.”
