JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. The applicants-appellants, who are Government servants, were convicted by the trial judge under Section 307 IPC and each was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 7 years. The sentence awarded to the appellants was suspended by this court 24.1.2002. 2. Through this stay application under Section 389 (1) Cr. P.C, the appellants have prayed for staying conviction imposed on them by the trial court vide its judgment and order dated 31.10.2001. 3. The controversy centres round the scope of Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 389 (1) Cr. P.C. provides that pending any appeal by a convicted person the Appellate Court, for reason to be recorded by it in writing, order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended and, also, if he is in confinement, that he be released on bail, or on his own bond." 4. In Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang (1995) 2 SCC 513 , , their lordships of the Apex Court propounded that what can be suspended U/s. 389(1) Cr. P.C. is the execution of the sentence or the order appealed against. The order referred to in Section 389(1) must be an order capable of execution. An order of conviction by itself is not capable of execution under the Code. It is the order of sentence or an order awarding compensation or imposing fine or release on probation which are capable of execution and which, if not suspend, would be required to be executed by the authorities. But in certain situation, the order of conviction can be executable, in the sense, it may incur a disqualification. In such a case the power under Section 389(1) could be invoked. In such situation, the attention of the appellate court must be specifically invited to the consequence that it is likely to fall to enable it to apply its mind to the issue under Section 389( 1) it is under an obligation to support its order 'for reasons to be recorded in writing. 5. Following the above decision of the Apex Court, a Division Bench of this Court in Kanhaiya v. State of Rajasthan 2001 (3) WLC (Raj.) 411, , (D.B. Cr. Misc. 5. Following the above decision of the Apex Court, a Division Bench of this Court in Kanhaiya v. State of Rajasthan 2001 (3) WLC (Raj.) 411, , (D.B. Cr. Misc. Application No. 652 of 2001) in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.733 of 2000), decided on 21.7.2001 have held that the conviction is capable of execution, in a sense that it may result in termination of services of the applicant. 6. Recently, the Apex Court in Smt. Akhtari Bi v. State of M.P. JT 2001 (4) SC 40, , held that appeal being a statutory right, the trial court's verdict does not attain finality during pendency of appeal. In such cases, trial is deemed to be continuing despite conviction. Their Lordships kept in abeyance the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant. 7. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court, as referred to above, it stands settled that conviction can be suspended provided the conviction is executable. It further becomes clear that where the effect of the order of conviction entails disqualification from contesting election or termination from services, the appellate court on a specific request made in this regard by the convict, may suspend the conviction after assigning the reasons. The appellate Court, therefore, may suspend the order of conviction under Section 389(1) where it is capable of execution. 8. In the case at hand, appellant Om Prakash was served with a notice to explain as to why departmental proceedings should not be initiated against him as he remained absent from duty. The period of absence of Appellant Om Prakash relates to the period after his conviction and before the sentence awarded to him by the trial court was suspended by this court. The argument of Mr. Balvada appears to be reasonable that conviction of the appellant may entail disqualification and that services of the appellant may be dispensed with, inasmuch as notice to initiate departmental proceedings has been issued. 9. There is sufficient material on record as regards appellant Om Prakash that the department has issued notice to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him, which may result into termination of his service. 9. There is sufficient material on record as regards appellant Om Prakash that the department has issued notice to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him, which may result into termination of his service. The initiation of departmental action being an adequate reason to believe that the order of conviction may likely to result in termination of his service, I consider it appropriate to entertain the prayer for suspension of conviction, as the conviction is capable of execution. 10. Consequently, the order of conviction dated 31.10.2001, passed by the trial court in so far it relates to convict Om Prakash, shall remain suspended till the disposal of this Criminal appeal. 11. The application of appellant Laxman Lal is kept pending for disposal. *******