Judgment A. Chakrabarti, J. 1. The order of termination dated 12.1.1993 at annexure No. 7 to the writ petition is the subject-matter of challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The brief facts, as contained in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as Research Associate in the respondent University by letter dated 3.21986. The University also provided accommodation to the petitioner like its other employees. On an Incident of quarrel between the petitioner and the wife of another employee of the University on 25.5.92, a departmental enquiry was started serving a charge sheet dated 24/25.7.1992, for violation of Rule 8(2) of the House Allotment Rules. Rule 8 of the said House Allotment Rules runs as under: "8(1) No employee shall sublet the whole or part of his/her residence or any of his/her outhouse, garage etc. For non compliance of these rules, he will be liable for disciplinary action besides forfeiture of residential facility. (2) Allotment of a residence may be cancelled if the allottee fails to maintain harmonious relations with neighbours. Where the allotment of a residence is cancelled for conduct prejudicial to the maintenance of harmonious relations with neighbours, the officer may at the discretion of the Estate Officer, be allotted another residence of the same type at any other place after giving an assurance in writing not to repeat such conduct in future." It has also been contended that the residential colony of the University is situated at a distance of about 8 km. from the University. Mr. Sant Ram was appointed as Enquiry Officer and thereafter Mr. V.K. Jain was appointed. As to the enquiry proceeding, the petitioner has further complaint relating to examination of witness and production of documents. Detail of such grievance has been set out in the writ petition. That apart, serious complaint has been made of non-supply of enquiry report to the petitioner. Thereupon by order dated 12.1.1993 the petitioner's service was terminated by giving him one month's notice. Accordingly, the petitioner has challenged the said termination order in the present writ petition. 3. The respondents contested the proceeding by filing a counter-affidavit. It has been contended therein that the said Sant Ram, the Enquiry Officer was asked to do the preliminary investigation and petitioner did not co-operate therein and as such full-fledged investigation could not be carried on which was apparent from the report therein. 3. The respondents contested the proceeding by filing a counter-affidavit. It has been contended therein that the said Sant Ram, the Enquiry Officer was asked to do the preliminary investigation and petitioner did not co-operate therein and as such full-fledged investigation could not be carried on which was apparent from the report therein. Accordingly, the matter was entrusted for full-fledged enquiry to Sri V.K. Jain which was conducted duly and the report was submitted. No injustice has been caused to the petitioner on the second enquiry being held as the petitioner was given full opportunity. Allegations relating to witnesses and documents have been denied. 4. Respondents contended that in view of the reason of misconduct of assaulting the wife of another employee, the impugned order was rightly passed. The petitioner filed a rejoinder affidavit as also a supplementary affidavit denying the allegation of respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the respondents. Parties agreed that the writ petition may be disposed of at this stage finally. 5. The main contention of the petitioner on merit is that the charge itself does not constitute misconduct as is applicable in the case of the petitioner. Admittedly, the incident did not occur within or in the vicinity of the establishment. The petitioner relied upon the law as laid down in the case of M/s. Glaxo Laboratories Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut and others reported in 1984 (1) SCC (Lands) 42. It has been held therein that the employer has hardly any extra territorial jurisdiction. He is not the custodian of general law and order situation nor the Guru or mentor of his workmen for their well regulated cultural advancement. If the power to regulate the behaviour of the workmen outside the duty hours and at any place wherever they may be was conferred upon the employer, contract of service may be reduced to contract of slavery. The employer is entitled to prescribe conditions to be enforced within, the premises where the workmen gather together for rendering service. The employer has both power and jurisdiction to regulate the behaviour of workmen within the premises of the establishment, or for peacefully carrying the industrial activity in the vicinity of the establishment. The employer is entitled to prescribe conditions to be enforced within, the premises where the workmen gather together for rendering service. The employer has both power and jurisdiction to regulate the behaviour of workmen within the premises of the establishment, or for peacefully carrying the industrial activity in the vicinity of the establishment. It has further observed in the aforesaid as follows : Therefore, even where the standing order is couched in a language which seeks to extend its operation far beyond the establishment, it would nonetheless be necessary to establish casual connection between the misconduct and the employment. And that is the ratio of the decision, and not that wherever the misconduct is committed ignoring the language of the standing order if it has some impact on the employment it would be covered by the relevant standing order. In order to avoid any ambiguity being raised in future and a controversial Interpretation question being raised, we must make it abundantly clear and incontrovertible that the casual connection in order to provide linkage between the alleged act of misconduct and employment must be real and substantial, immediate and proximate and not remote or tenuous. An illustration would succinctly bring out the difference. One workman severely belaboured another for a (sic) duty on the next day. Would this instance permit the employer to charge the assailant for misconduct as it (sic) had on the working in the industry. The answer is in the negative. The employer cannot take advantage to weed out workmen for incidents that occurred far away from his establishment." 6. On behalf of the respondents, reference was made to the case of State of Punjab v. Ram Singh, 1992 (4) SCC 54 . Reference was also made to the case of Daya Shankar v. High Court of Allahabad, AIR 1987 SC 1469 . Upon considering the law as referred to by the respective parties, I find that the cases referred to by the respondents were in special facts, one relating to the police service and other relating to the judicial service, but the case of Glaxo Laboratories Ltd. (supra) has specifically considered the particular point urged by the petitioner as regards the incident happened at a distance from the establishment. In the circumstances, following the said law as decided in the case of Glaxo Laboratories (supra), I hold that the present allegation against the petitioner, as stated in the charge-sheet, does not amount to misconduct whereon the employer could take action of disciplinary proceeding. 7. Accordingly, in the facts of the case, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The Impugned order dated 12.1.1993 at Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition and the charge-sheet dated 24/25.7.1992 at Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition are hereby quashed. There will be no order as to costs.