S.V. HARI PRASAD Vs. THE VICE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein, who was employed as a Driver with the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (henceforth referred to as the Corporation), challenges the Suspension Order No. 01/498 (9) 2014 -MPL -1, dated 16.12.2014 of the 3rd respondent, Depot Manager, Madanapalli Depot -I, Chittoor District.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner would submit on 06.12.2014, when the petitioner reported to duty at Madanapalle Depot I to perform duties, the security personnel on duty checked the petitioner in the presence of the Duty Controller and the breath alcohol analyzer has reported presence of 07 milligrams of alcohol in 100 milligrams of blood and hence, he was not allowed to perform the duty as it was suspected that he was under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the breath analyzer will react positively even if a person consumes Gutka and Cigarette. The petitioner therefore, attacks the findings of the breath analyzing test for the negligible quantity of the alcohol present in the blood. This apart, the learned counsel for the petitioner would also point out that the Corporation itself has issued a Circular on 22 -09 -2012 bringing out that the level of alcohol contained in the blood can be detected instantaneously besides obtaining the report in the form of a print out on the spot by subjecting the employees of the Corporation to the breath analyzing test using the latest gadgets. The Circular discloses that if 30 milligrams of alcohol is found in 100 milligrams of blood, then an inference can be drawn that such a person is under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. Since the finding in the instant case is only 07 milligrams of alcoholic presence, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be suspected to be under the influence of an alcoholic beverage and hence, he cannot be proceeded any further. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that even Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would only recognize a person, who has presence of 30 milligrams of alcohol in 100 milligrams of blood, to be under the influence of alcohol. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be suspected to be under the influence of an alcoholic beverage and subjected to any disciplinary proceedings on that score.

(3.) MY learned Brother Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar has noted in para 5 of his Judgment as under: