The court held that corroborative medical evidence, such as blood or urine tests, is essential before initiating disciplinary or criminal action.

The ruling came in a case involving Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC) driver A. Venkati , who was dismissed from service by the Madhira depot manager in Khammam district on charges of reporting to duty under the influence of alcohol and participating in a protest near the depot.

Court terms action one-sided

According to case records, authorities served the driver a chargesheet in March 2024 and dismissed him a month later after 17 years of service. The regional and executive directors rejected his appeal. Venkati contended that he had not consumed alcohol and had sought a medical retest, which was denied.

Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao observed that a breathalyser report could, at best, serve as prima facie evidence to refer a person for further medical examination. "Without conducting blood and urine tests to confirm the report, the authorities could not have initiated disciplinary action," the court said, adding that the RTC officials had acted without corroborative medical proof.

TSRTC cites high alcohol reading

TSRTC defended its decision, citing a breathalyser reading of 329 mg/dl as scientific evidence of intoxication. It argued that the driver's conduct disrupted services and caused financial loss.

Rejecting this argument, the court termed the dismissal "arbitrary and unsupported by evidence". It directed TSRTC to reinstate Venkati but denied back wages. The court further noted that while 13 employees participated in the same protest, only the petitioner faced disciplinary action, which it described as "unjustified and one-sided".