SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1677-15T2

IN THE MATTER OF NARESH RAJRAM,

MONTCLAIR STATE UNIVERSITY.

Argued May 9, 2017 - Decided 

Before Judges Reisner and Mayer.

On appeal from the New Jersey Civil Service 

Commission, Docket No. 2015-1669.

Eugenie F. Temmler argued the cause for 

appellant Naresh Rajram (Rabner Baumgart BenAsher & Nirenberg, P.C., attorneys; Ms. 

Temmler, of counsel and on the briefs).

Beth N. Shore, Deputy Attorney General, argued 

the cause for respondent Montclair State 

University (Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney 

General, attorney; Melissa Dutton Schaffer, 

Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Ms. 

Shore, on the brief).

Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, 

attorney for respondent Civil Service 

Commission (Pamela N. Ullman, Deputy Attorney 

General, on the statement in lieu of brief).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." 

Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the 

parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.

May 26, 2017
2 A-1677-15T2

PER CURIAM

Petitioner Naresh Rajram appeals the determination of the 

Civil Service Commission (Commission) upholding the decision of 

the administrative law judge (ALJ) terminating his employment with 

Montclair State University (University). We affirm.

The facts giving rise to the termination of petitioner's 

employment with the University are detailed in the ALJ's written 

decision dated October 1, 2015. We summarize the ALJ's findings 

to explain our disposition of this appeal. 

Petitioner was a senior building maintenance worker employed 

by the University. He was accused of unbecoming conduct toward a 

female student, A.P., who resided in a University dormitory.1 A.P. 

reported petitioner's unwelcome and harassing behavior to the 

University, which issued a notice of disciplinary action. 

Petitioner requested a hearing and the matter was referred to the 

Office of Administrative Law (OAL).

At the OAL hearing, A.P. described the improper conversations 

and unwelcome conduct initiated by petitioner. A.P. alleged that 

petitioner took her cellphone without permission and used it to 

call his phone in order to obtain her cellphone number; sent text 

messages to A.P. without her consent; and asked A.P. to go with 

 

1 We shall refer to the female student as A.P. to protect her 

privacy. 
3 A-1677-15T2

him to a bar and for ice cream. A.P. declined petitioner's 

overtures and ignored his unwanted text messages. Petitioner also 

allegedly asked A.P. personal questions about her relationship 

with a former boyfriend and made other inappropriate inquiries. 

A.P. testified that she had an exam on the evening she received 

petitioner's text messages. She was scared and upset by 

petitioner's text messages, rendering her unable to focus on the 

exam, which she failed.

In response to A.P.'s accusations during the hearing, 

petitioner claimed A.P. made up the allegations and text messages. 

In addition to the testimony of A.P. and petitioner, the ALJ heard 

from several University employees. He also reviewed screen shots 

of the text messages allegedly sent to A.P. by petitioner. 

In his decision, the ALJ described the demeanor of the 

witnesses and made meticulous credibility determinations as to 

testimony of each witness. In assessing credibility, the ALJ 

found that A.P. had no reason to fabricate her story. The ALJ 

disbelieved the argument advanced by petitioner's attorney that 

A.P. invented the incidents and text messages to justify her 

failing the exam. He also found it improbable that an otherwise 

"A" student would have failed and exam, but for the unpleasant and 

distressing encounters with petitioner. The ALJ further noted 

A.P.'s reluctance to ruin petitioner's career and reputation by 
4 A-1677-15T2

reporting the incidents to the University and filing criminal 

charges. Overall, the ALJ deemed the testimony of A.P. to be more 

credible than petitioner's testimony.

Based on his credibility findings, the ALJ concluded 

petitioner violated University policy by harassing A.P. in 

violation of N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(6) (conduct unbecoming a public 

employee). The ALJ determined that asking an underage student to 

a bar, taking a student's cellphone without permission, and seeking 

personal information about a student constituted conduct 

unbecoming a public employee. The ALJ reasoned that public 

employees are required to act in a professional manner and refrain 

from overly personal and harassing behavior. The ALJ found 

petitioner's conduct toward A.P.:

[M]ore reprehensible [because] an employee 

such as [petitioner] has access to the dorms 

where this female student live[d]. Such 

employees have a heightened responsibility of 

acting in a professional manner and refrain 

from acting in an overly personal and 

harassing behavior. [Petitioner] breached 

that responsibility. The effect on [A.P.] was 

palpable as she was frightened and disturbed 

by the incident. No student, especially as 

young and impressible as [A.P.] was, should 

have to be the victim of such harassing 

behavior. 

Having determined that petitioner violated University policy, 

the ALJ then considered the imposition of an appropriate 

punishment. In assessing the penalty against petitioner, the ALJ 
5 A-1677-15T2

found petitioner's "reprehensible" conduct warranted petitioner's 

termination.

The Commission adopted the ALJ's findings and conclusions and

affirmed petitioner's termination as a University employee.

On appeal, petitioner argues that the ALJ's findings were 

unsupported by the evidence. Petitioner also contends the 

punishment of termination was arbitrary, capricious and 

disproportionate to the charge.

Appellate courts have "a limited role" in reviewing 

administrative agency decisions. Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 

81 N.J. 571, 579 (1980). We give deference to an agency's 

determination unless the decision is arbitrary, capricious, or is 

unsupported by substantial credible evidence in the record. In 

re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 27-28 (2007); Campbell v. Dep't. of 

Civil Serv., 39 N.J. 556, 562 (1963). We defer to an agency's 

findings if they could reasonably have been reached on sufficient 

credible evidence in the record, "considering 'the proofs as a 

whole,' with due regard to the opportunity of the one who heard 

the witnesses to judge . . . their credibility." In re Taylor, 158 

N.J. 644, 656 (1999) (quoting Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J.

589, 599 (1965)). 

This deferential standard applies to imposition of 

disciplinary sanctions as well. Herrmann, supra, 192 N.J. at 28 
6 A-1677-15T2

(citing Knoble v. Waterfront Comm'n of N.Y. Harbor, 67 N.J. 427, 

431-32 (1975)). When reviewing sanctions imposed by an 

administrative agency, "appellate courts should consider whether 

the 'punishment is so disproportionate to the offense, in the 

light of all of the circumstances, as to be shocking to one's 

sense of fairness.'" In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 195 (2011) 

(citing In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 484 (2007)). 

The ALJ's findings were based on his detailed credibility 

determinations. The ALJ concluded that A.P.'s version of the 

events was more credible than petitioner's version of the events. 

The ALJ determined that A.P.'s written statement to the police and 

her oral statements to University employees regarding the 

incidents did not differ significantly from A.P.'s testimony 

during the hearing. Additionally, the ALJ found A.P. did not 

demonstrate animus toward petitioner. Rather, the ALJ found A.P. 

was concerned about petitioner's career and personal well-being.

On the other hand, the ALJ found petitioner's testimony 

incredible. If petitioner was truly inquiring about "cricket 

bats," as he claimed, the ALJ questioned why petitioner would have 

contacted A.P. late at night. In assessing petitioner's demeanor 

during the hearing and his explanation of his encounters with 

A.P., the ALJ concluded petitioner was less credible than A.P. 
7 A-1677-15T2

The Commission's termination of petitioner's employment was 

based upon the ALJ's detailed findings that petitioner engaged in 

conduct unbecoming an employee and that petitioner's behavior was 

sufficiently egregious. Petitioner's behavior toward A.P.

violated implicit standards of good behavior. See Hartmann v. 

Police Dep't of Ridgewood, 258 N.J. Super. 32, 40 (App. Div. 1992). 

His conduct was especially egregious given A.P.'s age and the fact 

that petitioner confronted A.P. alone near A.P.'s dormitory room. 

Petitioner's conduct made A.P. feel unsafe. The University has a 

responsibility to ensure the safety of its students. Because 

petitioner never acknowledged any impropriety concerning his 

contacts with A.P., he failed to understand the importance of the 

University's policy limiting employee interactions with students. 

Based upon petitioner's severe and egregious conduct, the 

Commission concluded that petitioner was unsuitable for employment 

at a public university, see In re Herrmann, supra, 192 N.J. at 33, 

and termination was appropriate.

Having reviewed the record, we conclude the Commission's 

decision was based upon substantial credible evidence in the 

record. The Commission adopted the ALJ's detailed credibility 

determinations and fact-findings. We further conclude that 

petitioner's termination from the University was not so 
8 A-1677-15T2

disproportionate to the offense in this case as to shock our sense 

of fairness. Stallworth, supra, 208 N.J. at 195.

Affirmed.