IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.21191 OF 2024 Date: 24.02.2026 Between:

Sri Venkataiah.

…Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, TSRTC & (4) others.

…Respondents

ORDER:

Heard Mr. Raja Rao Algunoori, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 5 and perused the material available on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as khalasi on 02.07.1993. Subsequently, he was promoted to LH (Leading Hand) and served until his removal from service under the impugned orders. The petitioner is having 28 years of service with clean record without any remarks or punishment. While the petitioner was attending his regular duties, the respondent authorities conducted an alcohol test on 17.04.2023 with BAC Machine by the RTC Constable. In the first instance, it did not show any reading and in the second instance, it showed a positive report of 24mg/100 ml in BAC Machine.

3. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents without conducting any medical examination of blood or urine test to ascertain the presence of alcohol, initiated disciplinary proceedings and issued a charge sheet by placing the petitioner under suspension on 24.04.2023. The respondents issued charge sheet to the petitioner with two (02) charges i.e., 1) For having attended the duty in drunken condition which shows neglect of duty likely to result in danger to the lives of employees or third parties or both, which constitutes misconduct under TSRTC Conduct Regulations 28 (ix) (b) & 28 (xxxii) 1963 and 2) For having attending the duty under the influence of drink which shows serious misconduct under TSRTC CC & A Regulation 9 (ix) 1967. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 30.04.2023 and without considering the explanation of the petitioner; the respondents removed the petitioner from service on 24.07.2023 vide impugned proceedings No.W4/209(01)/2023-UPL. In view of the said proceedings, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No.4 and the same was rejected on 29.08.2023 and the petitioner approached the respondent No.3 by way of review vide No.PA/19(105)/2023-HZ and the same was also rejected on 31.08.2023 and the said orders are impugned in the writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per Section 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, any person in his blood, alcohol exceeding 30 mg per 100ml of blood detected in a test by a breath analyzer (or any other test including a laboratory test) or alcohol percentage would be affected. In the instant case, the petitioner having only 24mg/100ml, when the person contains such alcohol, it would not be affected. It is a settled law that when the alcohol test is positive, the same should be proved by the medical test. Without considering the facts, the respondents issued impugned orders mechanically and imposed punishment of removal from service. The said action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary and requested this Court to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned removal order dated 24.07.2023 in No.W4/209(01)/2023-UPL issued by the respondent No.5 and consequential order in Case No.Typ/19(04)/2023-UPL dated 29.08.2023 passed by the respondent No.4 and the order vide No.PA/19(105)/2023-HZ dated 31.08.2023 passed by the respondent Nos.3 and also direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following Judgments:-

i. Munna Lal vs. Union of India and Others ii. T. Venkata Krishna vs. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and Others

6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5, basi