In a significant judgment that could impact future disciplinary cases across government departments, the Telangana High Court has ruled that a breathalyser test alone cannot be treated as conclusive proof of intoxication. The court observed that such results must be corroborated with blood or urine tests before any punitive action can be taken. Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao made these remarks while hearing the case of A. Venkati, a Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TGSRTC) driver from Madhira depot in Khammam district, who was dismissed from service over alleged alcohol consumption during a protest at his workplace.

According to the TGSRTC, the disciplinary action was justified since the breathalyser showed an alcohol level of 329 mg/100 ml, claiming it to be “direct and scientific proof” of intoxication. The corporation further argued that Venkati’s actions caused a financial loss of ₹18,532 to the RTC due to canceled services and tarnished its public image. However, the High Court disagreed, citing a 2015 precedent in a similar case and ruling that the breathalyser alone cannot substantiate claims of alcohol consumption. Justice Rao noted that such reports serve merely as preliminary indicators and not as decisive evidence in disciplinary or criminal proceedings.

The court concluded that the driver’s dismissal, based solely on the breathalyser reading, was legally unsustainable and directed that medical corroboration is mandatory in such cases. The judgment reinforces the principle that any finding of intoxication must rely on medically verified data, not just machine-generated readings. Legal experts view this ruling as a reminder for all departments—especially transport and law enforcement—to follow due medical procedures before taking strict actions against employees. The decision could set an important precedent for fairness and scientific accuracy in administrative justice across Telangana.