An employer cannot take disciplinary action against an employee for acts of misconduct committed outside the establishment and unrelated to the employee's duties or work.

( 1 ) THE petitioner was appointed as a conductor on 30-1-1975 in the andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporotion and attached to Yemimganur bus Depot. While he was working so, the Divisional Manager, kurnool, made a complaint against him complaining that the petitioner along with a companion in a drunken condition trespassed into his house on the night of 11-3-1983 at about 23-00 hours and threatened, misbehaved and demanded him to sign on a paper to provide a job to one of his relatives and he had created panic in his house. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to go into the complaint, who after a thorough and detailed enquiry, submitted his report. Pending enquiry the petitioner was suspended. The following charges were framed against the petitioner : (1) For having trespassed into the house of the Divisional Manager, kurnool, Sri A. Kami Reddy, along with your companion in drunken condition at 23-00 hours on 11-3-1983 and terrified not only the family members in the house but also the entire locality by creating panic with your provocating and assulting mood duly demanding him to endorse then and there on an application brought by you, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (viii) (xv) (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963. (2) For having demanded the Divisional Manager, Kurnool in drunken condition to give a job to one ,of his relatives and demanded him to sign on a paper in a threatening mood at his residence at about 23-00 hours on 11-3-1983 which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (viii) (xv) (xxxi) of the APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963. (3) For having used filthy and abusing language in a loud voice against the Divisional Manager, Kurnool, along with your companion in drunken condition duly trespassing into his house and thus created panic at the residence of Divisional Manager at the night time at 23-00 hours on 11-3-1983 which constitutes nvsconduct under regulation 28 (viii) (xv) (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963".

( 2 ) THE enquiry Officer as well as the appellate authority found the petitioner guilty of misconduct under clauses (viii) (xv) and (xxxi) of Regulation, 28 of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the "conduct Regulations") covered by charges 1 and 2 and he was not found guilty of the third charge under the same clauses as set out above.

( 3 ) THE petitioner having been found guilty of misconduct under charges 1 and 2, he was dismissed from service with immediate effect by proceedings dated 10-3-1984 passed by the Divisional Manager, Chittoor.

( 4 ) SR. G. Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that taking the charge 1 and 2 for the purpose of this writ petition to be true, they do not fall within clauses (viii), (xv) and (xxxi) of the said regulations and as such the order of removal of the petitioner by the Officers of the Corporation is illegal and liable to be quashed.

( 5 ) THE principal question, therefore, that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether even if uncontraverted the allegations of misconduct set out in the charge sheet extracted above would constitute misconduct under clause (viii), (xv) and (xxxi) of the said Regulation No. 28, I have, therefore, to consider the scope and ambit of the said clauses.

( 6 ) CLAUSES (viii), (xv) and (xxxi) of Regulations 28 of the said Regulations read as under : yviii) : Insubordination or disobedience whether individually with another, and others to any lawful order of a superior officer : (xv) : any act involving moral turpitude which is punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code: and (xxxi) : any other act not specifically mentioned above but which is prima facie detrimental to the interests of the Corporation. " clause (viii) of the said Regulations contemplate of in subordination or disobedience to any lawful order of a superior officer.

( 7 ) A persual of the allegations made in