HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18131 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is employed as a Driver in the APSRTC and at present he is attached to Tekkali Depot. On 14-01-2009 he was assigned the duty on a service between Tekkali and Rajahmundry, which is provided with Ticket Issuing Machine (TIM). Two drivers would be put on duty. While one of them drives the bus, the other would issue tickets on turns. In the route, a check was conducted by the Vigilance Department when the petitioner was on the duty of issuing tickets. No cash and ticket irregularities were noticed. However, alleging that the petitioner proved positive in the Breath Analyzer Test, disciplinary proceedings were initiated. Charge sheet was issued on 31-01-2009 and he was placed under suspension. 2. The petitioner submitted his explanation and not satisfied with that, the 3rd respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer. The charge against the petitioner was found proved in the report, dated 13-03- 2009. Taking the same into account, the Depot Manager passed an order, dated 25-04-2009, removing the petitioner from service. The appeal preferred against the order, was rejected by the 3rd respondent. However, in the review, the Regional Manager, the 2nd respondent herein, passed an order, dated 27-02-2010, setting aside the order of removal, but directing that the petitioner be reinstated into service as a fresh candidate. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the denial of other reliefs, such as, back wages, continuity of service and attendant benefits. 3. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he was found to have consumed alcohol while on duty. The petitioner flatly denied the allegation and stated that he was chewing a tobacco product by name, Ghutkha. It is not a case where the petitioner was subjected to any medical examination, nor he was found to have resorted to any objectionable acts vis-à-vis the passengers or other individuals. The Breath Analyzer, may at the most, give a prima facie indication, the result that is procured from it, cannot be treated as final. The 2nd respondent has, no doubt, granted relief to the petitioner in the form of reinstatement. However, the benefit of 25 years of service rendered by the petitioner cannot be taken away just like that. This Court is of the view that the petitioner can be denied the benefit of the back wages for the act that is proved against him while keeping the other benefits of the service in tact. 4. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed directing that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of the past service and attendant benefits. However, he shall not be entitled to any monetory benefits on account of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J October 12, 2011. KTL