The Telangana High Court has ruled that a breathalyzer test alone is not sufficient proof of intoxication. The court has emphasized the necessity of corroborating medical evidence, specifically blood and urine tests, to substantiate charges of intoxication.

The ruling came as Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao heard a petition filed by A. Venkati, a former TGSRTC (Telangana State Road Transport Corporation) driver from Madhira depot in Khammam district, who was dismissed from his position in April 2024 after 17 years of service. The driver was accused of consuming alcohol and participating in a protest in front of the depot, which allegedly resulted in a revenue loss of ₹18,532 due to cancelled services and damage to the corporation's reputation.

The TGSRTC defended the disciplinary action, asserting that the breathalyzer test showed an alcohol reading of 329 mg/100 ml, which they claimed was direct and scientific evidence of intoxication. However, Justice Rajeshwar Rao, referencing a similar High Court order from 2015, stated that a breathalyzer report alone, without supporting blood or urine tests, cannot sufficiently prove intoxication. The court concluded that the driver's dismissal based solely on the breath test was unsustainable.

The High Court clarified that breathalyzer reports can only be considered preliminary evidence that warrants further medical examination. It observed that the punishment was illegal and arbitrary, and directed TGSRTC to reinstate the driver, although without back wages. The court underscored that without conducting blood and urine tests to confirm the breathalyzer report, authorities should not initiate disciplinary action.

This ruling highlights the importance of comprehensive medical testing in cases of alleged intoxication, ensuring that disciplinary actions are based on conclusive evidence rather than preliminary indicators.