In Blake v. State Personnel Board (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 541, a male state employee, while attending a convention, pointed a gun at two male coworkers and told them to "stay away" from a certain female coworker. (Id. at pp. 546-547.) The Court held that termination was an excessive penalty, in light of the employee's long record of exemplary service, the lack of evidence of any impact on the parties' work relations, the fact that the whole group had been drinking, and the fact that the employee had apologized and taken steps to prevent any recurrence. (Id. at p. 554.) In that case, a supervising deputy labor commissioner with 19 years of exemplary service pointed a gun at a fellow employee at a gathering outside of duty hours. (Id. at pp. 546-547, 553.) The petitioner urged that his dismissal for pointing a gun at another state employee constituted an infringement of his constitutional right of privacy. The court noted that even constitutionally sanctioned behavior could be disciplined when it had egregious effects: "It is true that a public employee, even one serving at the pleasure of the appointing authority, may not be dismissed from his employment for the exercise of his constitutional rights absent a showing that the restraint which the appointing authority would impose on the exercise of those rights is justified by compelling public necessity. . . . But as our Supreme Court stressed in Board of Education v. Swan, 41 Cal.2d 546, 556, and iterated as recently in Morrison v. State Board of Education, . . . 1 Cal.3d 214: '" One employed in public service does not have a constitutional right to such employment and is subject to reasonable supervision and restriction by the authorized governmental body or officer to the end that proper discipline may be maintained, and that activities among the employees may not be allowed to disrupt or impair the public service."'" ( Blake v. State Personnel Board, supra, 25 Cal.App.3d at p. 552.) The Court recognized that an incident in which a petitioner pointed a gun and uttered threatening words constituted a cause for discipline under Government Code section 19572, subdivision (m). The court, in dicta, indicated that "a superior who unjustifiably abuses a subordinate concerning the manner in which he performs his work and who threatens his job" could be subject to disciplinary action under section 19572. ( Blake, supra, at p. 550.) The court found dismissal was excessive because the record lacked direct testimony that working relationships were affected, the dismissed employee's conduct occurred after a social evening during which the group had several drinks, and the dismissed employee apologized the following morning, acknowledged his wrongful conduct and stated it would not recur. (Id. at 554.)