ORDER: NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J. This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief :- “ ….. to issue a writ, direction or order more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the order, dated 25.04.2024 passed by the 5 th respondent, which was upheld by the 4 th respondent vide proceedings dated 14.05.2024, which was further upheld vide order dated 30.07.2024 as being illegal, arbitrary and further violative of law declared in W.P.No.30453 of 2013, dated 25.04.2023 and W.P.No.5077 of 2021, dated 04.07.2024 and consequently set aside the same …….”. 2. Heard Sri Satya Sadhan Chalamala, learned counsel representing Smt.B.Geetha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Satish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows :- The petitioner was appointed as a driver on 01.01.2007 and has completed more than 17 years of service. Meanwhile, he was issued a charge-sheet dated 16.03.2024 on the allegation that the petitioner consumed alcohol and participated in a dharna. The petitioner has submitted an explanation on 23.04.2024. The respondent authority has conducted an enquiry and submitted a report on 10.04.2024. Despite his objections dated 23-04-2024, a show-cause notice dated 23-04-2024 was issued to the petitioner, and he was removed from service vide proceedings of the 5 th respondent, dated 25.04.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 3 rd respondent. The 3 rd respondent, after hearing both sides and considering the material available on record, dismissed the appeal, confirming the order passed by the 5th respondent vide proceedings dated 14.05.2024. Further aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a review before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent, vide proceedings dated 30.07.2024, dismissed the review confirming the order passed by the 3 rd respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not consumed liquor while performing duty and therefore, the charge framed against the petitioner is wholly untenable and unsustainable. Insofar as the charge that a dharna was conducted, resulting in a loss of revenues, is concerned, the petitioner has already submitted that he has attended the dharna at 11.30 a.m., and that the dharna commenced from 5.30 a.m., for which no coercive action was taken by the police. 5. Insofar as the charge that a dharna was conducted, resulting in a loss of revenues, is concerned, the petitioner has already submitted that he has attended the dharna at 11.30 a.m., and that the dharna commenced from 5.30 a.m., for which no coercive action was taken by the police. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the dharna was held in support of one Sri Ch.N.Rao, who is a driver of Madhira Depot, and no punitive action was taken against fourteen (14) employees, who participated in the dharna. The 5 th respondent, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, erroneously passed the proceedings dated 25.04.2024, removing the petitioner from service. The 2nd respondent, as well as the 3 rd respondent, dismissed the appeal and review, without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, thereby confirming the order passed by the 5 th respondent. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that a similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in W.P.No.30453 of 2013, and this Court vide order dated 25.04.2023, while discussing the validity of a similar charge of intoxication and referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Munnalal Vs. Union of India , (2010 (15) SCC 399) and the judgment of this Court in J.Pulla Rao Vs. The Depot Managar, Tsrtc, Jangaon , ( 1996 (1) ALD 764 ) held that in the absence of medical evidence, the oral testimony cannot be relied upon and held in para Nos.10 and 11 that conducting a breath analyzer test and not conducting a medical examination is not correct. The said finding is further reiterated in para 15 of the aforesaid judgment. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that this Court has again considered the same issue in W.P.No.5077 of 2021 and held that breath analyzer report may prima-facie the evidence to send the petitioner for further medical examination to ascertain the facts, but without conducting the blood and urine test to confirm the prima facie report of breath analyzer, the respondents would not have initiated action against the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the reference in the impugned order dated 25-04-2024, shows that only based on the statement of the petitioner, a finding was recorded. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the reference in the impugned order dated 25-04-2024, shows that only based on the statement of the petitioner, a finding was recorded. The statement of one Sri B. Sateesh R.T.C, Constable, Madhira, shows that only a breath analyzer was conducted, and he was not sent for any further medical examination. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that insofar as 2 nd charge is concerned, participation in dharna is at the fagend and that too with 13 more employees and against whom, no such penalty has been imposed, which clearly shows that the punishment was imposed only on the petitioner and the respondent authority cannot treat the petitioner in a discriminative way while imposing punishment. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has approached the higher authorities by way of appeal and review, which were also erroneously dismissed by confirming the proceedings issued by the 5th respondent. 11. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders passed by the respondents and allow the writ petition. 12. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was removed from service vide Proc.No. 01/209(1)2024-MDR, dated 25-04-2024, issued by the 5th respondent on the ground that while in duty, he was under an intoxicated condition and later participated in a Dharna and caused damage to the Respondent Corporation. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority was rejected vide Proc.No.PA/19(27)/2024-Dy.RM(O)/KMM dated 14.05.2024 and a review petition filed by the petitioner before the Reviewing Authority was also rejected vide Proc.No.PA/19(27)/2024-Dy.RM(O)/KMM dated 15.06.2024. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent, which was rejected on 30.07.2024. Against which the present writ petition is filed. 13. It is further stated that the disciplinary action has a strong factual basis regarding the intoxication charge and that the Breath Analyzer (BAA) test conducted on 08.03.2024 recorded 329 mg/100 ml, which is direct, objective and scientific evidence of intoxication, not merely an oral testimony. This misconduct resulted in service cancellation, dislocation, public inconvenience, and revenue loss. As per Section 185 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, "Whoever while driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle has in his blood alcohol exceeding 30 mg. This misconduct resulted in service cancellation, dislocation, public inconvenience, and revenue loss. As per Section 185 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, "Whoever while driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle has in his blood alcohol exceeding 30 mg. per 100 ml. of blood detected in a test by a breath analyzer or is under the influence of a drug to such an extent has to be incapable of exercising proper control over the vehicle shall be punishable.’ 14. It is further stated that the machine-generated reading was verified by on-duty RTC personnel. To refute the petitioner's claim of a faulty machine or his external "zero" reading, the Corporation possessed concrete evidence that on the very same day (08.03.2024), the same breath analyser machine at Madhira Depot was used to test 54 other employees, and 26 of them showed a "0" reading. Therefore, it is conclusively proved that the machine was functional and accurate in detecting the absence of alcohol, thereby directly refuting the petitioner's assertions. Operating a public transport vehicle in an intoxicated state is a grave misconduct under the TSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963. Reg.28 (ix) (a), (xvii) and (xxxii), directly endangering public safety and revenue loss. 15. It is further stated that the petitioner, instead of approaching the Industrial Tribunal, has chosen the inherent powers of this Court. On this point itself, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 16. It is further stated that the petitioner not only consumed the alcohol while on duty but also later participated in a Dharna along with other employees and political leaders, which caused revenue loss of Rs.18,532/- due to cancelled kilometers, which tarnished the Corporation's image. Police Madhira also registered a case in Cr.No. 34/2024 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 34 1, 186, 294-B, read with 34 IPC. The petitioner misbehaved during his work and caused monetary loss to the Corporation. Therefore, the disciplinary authority passed an order of removal against the petitioner, and the said order was also confirmed by both the appellate authority and reviewing authority. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 17. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. Therefore, the disciplinary authority, after hearing both sides and after considering the material on record, rightly passed the order of removal. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 17. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. Therefore, the disciplinary authority, after hearing both sides and after considering the material on record, rightly passed the order of removal. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the disciplinary authority removing the petitioner from service before the appellate authority. On re-appreciation of the evidence and the material available on record, the appellate authority also confirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a review before the reviewing authority. After reviewing the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority, and after hearing both sides, the reviewing authority dismissed the review, confirming the order passed by the appellate authority, which inturn conformed the order passed by the disciplinary authority, resulting in the petitioner’s removal from service. Therefore, the writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 18. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the considered view that the breath analyzer test is not entirely sufficient to prove the drunken condition. The breath analyzer report may, prima facie, be the evidence to send the petitioner for further medical examination to ascertain the facts, but without conducting the blood and urine tests to confirm the report of the breath analyzer, the respondents could not have initiated action against the petitioner. 19. Insofar as the dharna is concerned, the petitioner stated that he along with 13 other employees participated in the dharna and no penalty has been imposed against the said 13 employees, only the petitioner has been penalized. The petitioner also stated that the dharna commenced from 5.30 a.m., and he attended the dharna at 11.30 a.m., after which no coercive action was taken by the Police. 20. The respondents relied on the order dated 19.02.2015 passed by this Court in W.P.No.3627 of 2015. The order also indicates in addition to the breath analyzer test, a blood test and a urine test are required, when punishing the employee. In the present case, the petitioner requested the authorities to recheck and he stated that he does not have a habit of drinking. The order also indicates in addition to the breath analyzer test, a blood test and a urine test are required, when punishing the employee. In the present case, the petitioner requested the authorities to recheck and he stated that he does not have a habit of drinking. Without considering the petitioner’s request, the respondents have punished the petitioner, which is illegal and arbitrary. Further, without confirming the intoxicated condition of the petitioner with the required tests, only basing on the breath analyzer test, the petitioner cannot be punished. Therefore, the impugned punishment orders are clearly illegal and cannot be sustained. 21. Hence, the impugned orders dated 25.04.2024, 14.05.2024 and 30.07.2024 are set aside, and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service, without back wages. 22. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.