A security guard at the medical school was fined and accused of sending pictures of the corpse, the layout of the vice-chancellor’s residence, and other classified information.
At a private security guard licensing office hearing, security technician Abhishek Maharaj sent a photo of the dead body, the address and room layout of the Vice Chancellor’s residence at the University of Auckland School of Medicine, a woman he considered to be his girlfriend. to a safe place. campus after school.
Maharajji denied sending pictures of the corpse, but accepted other issues.
An investigation by the Complaints, Investigations and Prosecutions Unit (CIPU) found that the alleged incident did indeed occur.
Other aspects of the complaint were dismissed.
The complainant said Maharaj sent a photo of the body in the unzipped body bag using the messaging function, which could only be viewed briefly before it was automatically deleted.
She provided copies of text messages sent before and after receiving the photos.
Maharaj said he was unable to prove that he had sent them as no copies of the photos were provided.
He said he wasn’t familiar with the technique.
PA McConnell found his account from a security engineer with the level of experience and seniority he claimed to be unreliable.
McConnell found that when Maharaj was previously interviewed by his employer, he admitted to sending the petitioner pictures of at least one corpse from his medical school.
Maharaj said he wanted to be able to keep his certificate so he could safely continue working.
But McConnell saw little of his remorse.
“Throughout the process, he largely blamed the petitioner for violations, saying she was yelling at him with text messages when he was at work and wanting to know what he was doing. He justified his actions by saying, but he provided no evidence.
“Even if the complainant was constantly texting, the way he handled personal messages during working hours was far more than sending images and information that violated the protocols and security of the university and his employer. Excellent for
Maharajji acknowledged that his behavior was unacceptable and dissatisfying, but not necessarily wrongful.
The woman was the only person to disclose confidential information, and the two were intimate at the time.
He considered the complainant his girlfriend and believed he would not share the information she sent.
Maharaj was convicted of misconduct as a result of gross violations of the university’s and his employer’s security and privacy protocols and requirements.
His penalty for misconduct was reprimand and a $600 fine.
By the time the complaint was filed, Maharaj had voluntarily quit his job.
He was also banned from working at the university and received a final warning from his employer.