ILS 119.5.
The Endangering the Saftey of an Aircraft offence is a non starter unless, the ATCO caused specific danger to a sepcific aircraft.
If there is such evidence then the ATCO would be charged. He makes his own decisions and is responsible for them. In order to implicate management, then you would have to prove that they knew the ATCO was incapable of doing his job due to alcohol.
There is a difference between knowing or believing that he was incapable of doing his job and knowing he has been drinking. And that may be the crux of where this has gone wrong.
The easiest way to explain it is using driving as an example. If I have two pints I am not drunk, but I am judged by the Goverments medical advisers to be impaired. If I have one pint, I have been drinking yes, but I would not be over the limit of what the goverment has decided would impair my ability to drive.
Now relate that to this incident. The fact he smells of drink does not mean he is impaired, or that he is drunk. It could be he uses aftershave that smells of intoxicating liquor, or beer shampoo. This is where you have a problem in that you claim management 'know' he is 'under the influence'. There is a difference as I say.
Moving on, you say the ATCO is innocent. Yes if the circumstances you describe he is, that does not mean he did not go to work in a state which would be a breach of the Aviation and Railway Safety Act. By that I mean is is not proveable. Police were not called.
Again if the circumstances are as you disrcibe, then management can prove nothing....He did not have to take a breath test. there is no evidnce that will stand up, that he has been drinking, apart from the smell...that could be caused by many things.
The cock up seems to be on the part of management. You ask why they allowed him to continue to work. A Good question. But you are asking the wrong people. The only people that know are management themselves.
By not doing something about it when they found out, assuming that is correct, then they condone what he is doing. If they have no medical evidence then anything they do to discipline the ATCO is tainted. The immidiate and obvious reply to any action taken would be, 'I can't have been drunk/intoxicated/impaired because you allowed me to continue working'
To my mind they should have taken him off controlling duties immidiatly and called the Police. The effect of that would be to prove conculsivly he was innocent or not.
I have a cynical mind (as you have seen) and I wonder why they didn't do that?