Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—Heard Shri R.K. Ojha, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Ashish Kumar Ojha for the petitioner, Shri Azad Khan, learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Shri C.B. Yadav, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Nisheeth Yadav for the respondent No. 2.

2. The petitioner in this writ petition is seeking quashing of the order dated 26.2.2015 whereby she has been placed under suspension with a further prayer that a direction be issued to the respondent No. 2 to constitute a proper committee as required under Section 4 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 read with judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vishakha Dev v. State of Rajasthan.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that she has made allegations of sexual harassment against the respondent No. 3 in which an enquiry has already been instituted. The submission is that the order of suspension has been passed by way of counter blast to implicate the petitioner on false allegations. A further submission has been made by learned senior counsel that the order of suspension is ante dated and infact the petitioner had continued to discharge her duty even upto 2nd March. From a perusal of the impugned order of suspension it is noticed that there are several allegations which are of a very serious nature relating to causing loss to the Government exchequer of an amount about Rs. 2,00,000/-. There are further allegations of causing loss about Rs. 19,000/- by over writing. There are also allegation of misappropriation of several sums. There are also allegations of misappropriation of funds of about Rs. 11,00,000/- and about Rs. 14,00,000/- also. All these allegations are of a very serious nature relating to financial irregularities.

4. Considering these allegations I do not find any ground for interference in the impugned suspension order.

5. Shri Ojha, learned senior counsel then submitted that the Committee looking into the allegations of sexual harassment leveled by the petitioner be reconstituted. The submission of Shri Ojha is that if the allegation is made against a senior officer then the lady officer constituting the Committee should atleast be senior to that officer. He submits that Harish Kumar Verma is the second officer in the Greater NOIDA Establishment and that Smt. Leenu Sehgal has been changed and in her place one Smt. Navisa Sharma, DGM Planning has been incorporated in the Committee but she is subordinate to Harish Kumar Verma. It is also mentioned that there are two other lady officers, Assistant Law Officer and one Shri S.R. Zeena, member of NGO and she is an independent member.

6. Shri Ojha submits that there should be a Lady member senior to the officer against whom the allegations have been made and if such a lady is not available such a lady should be incorporated in the Committee from some other department. He further submits that Section 4 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 provides that the woman officer should be of a senior level rank meaning thereby that she must be senior to the officer against whom the allegations have been made. Section 4 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 reads as under:

“4. Constitution of Internal Complaints Committee : (1) Every employer of a workplace shall, by an order in writing, constitute a Committee to be known as the “Internal Complaints Committee”:

Provided that where the offices or administrative units of the workplace are located at different places or divisional or sub-divisional level, the Internal Committee shall be constituted at all administrative units or offices.

(2) The Internal Committee shall consist of the following members to be nominated by the employer, namely-

(a) a Presiding Officer who shall be a woman employed at a senior level at workplace from amongst the employe