' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the majority decision of learned Federal Service Tribunal dated 28-10-1996 whereby the major penalty of removal from service awarded by the departmental authority was upheld. It may be mentioned that out of 3 learned members who constituted the Tribunal, 2 upheld the order of the departmental authority awarding major punishment of removal from service while 3rd learned member set aside the impugned decision of the departmental authority and converted the major penalty of removal from service into minor penalty of stoppage of 3 increments for 5 years, discontinuation of payment of non-practicing allowance to the petitioner and recovery of previous non-practicing allowance paid to the petitioner and reinstatement in service.
2. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner was charged on 8-2-1995 with the following allegations:- "(i) You are drawing Non-Practicing Allowance and at the same time running a Private Laboratory.
(ii) You are also drawing share of Blood Bank, while drawing the Non-Practicing Allowance.
(iii) Certain expired kits were found from your charge, which were not purchased by the hospital."
' An enquiry committee was constituted to enquire into the charges against the petitioner. In its report, the enquiry committee in respect of the first charge, recommended that the petitioner should not be paid non practicing allowance in future and a definite policy be evolved by the institute in this behalf. With regard to second charge, the enquiry committee recommended that the petitioner be asked to refund non practicing allowance so far paid to him by the P.I.M.S. And on charge number three, the enquiry committee recommended that a stern warning be given to the petitioner, he should be transferred from Blood Bank to Pathology Department. On the basis of above findings of the enquiry committee a further show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 24-2-1996. It appears that in the meantime, the petitioner was further charged on 17-3-1996 as follows:-- "Whereas, in connection with the death case of a patient Mr. Noor Muhammad due to wrong blood transfusion it has been observed that you changed the blood group from AB-ve to AB+ve while according to expert opinion blood group cannot be changed without permission from the Incharge of concerned department where patient is admitted.
' It has also been established that certain expired kits of HIV were found under your charge, while according to expert opinion such kits cannot be used."
' The above charge was also referred to the same enquiry committee which had earlier enquired into charges against the petitioner and after holding necessary enquiry, the enquiry committee made same recommendations which are referred earlier. The competent authority, however, after considering the reply given by the petitioner to the notice served on him after the enquiry report, removed the petitioner from service. An appeal against the order of departmental authority failed as by a majority of 2 to 1 the Service Tribunal upheld major penalty awarded by the competent authority.
3. We are inclined to grant leave to appeal in the above petition to consider whether in view of the recommendations by the two enquiry committees constituted to enquire into the charges against the petitioner that the petitioner be awarded minor punishment of recovery of non practicing allowance paid to him, discontinuation of the future payment of non-practicing allowance and his transfer from Blood Bank to Pathology Department and that of stern warning, a major penalty imposed by the departmental authority removing- him from service was justified?