ORDER This petition coming on for Orders upon perusing, the petition and the memorandum of Grounds in Crl.A.No.1546 of 2003 on the file of the High Court and upon hearing the arguments of M.Sathyanarayanan, Advocate for the petitioner and of R.Muniappa Raj, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) on behalf of the respondent, the Court made the following order: The sole accused/petitioner, challenges his conviction passed by the trial Court in S.C.No.193 of 2002, dated 25.9.2003, under Section 3(i)(x) SC/ST (P&A) Act, 1989, for which he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 1 year and fine of Rs.2,000/- with a default sentence of 2 months Simple Imprisonment. The petitioner preferred an appeal and the sentence was suspended by this Court in Crl.M.P.No.9774 of 2003 dated 20.10.2003. 2. Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy, learned senior counsel, contended that the petitioner was working as a Secretary to the Government Telecommunication Employees Co-operative Society and he has been suspended after the conviction and the suspension order was challenged by filing writ petition in W.P.No.3657 of 2005 and the same was admitted by this Court and interim stay of order of suspension was granted in W.V.M.P.No.1024/2005. It is further contended by the learned senior counsel that inspite of the stay order, the petitioner was continuously kept under suspension. 3. It is also further brought to my notice by the learned senior counsel that as per the proceedings dated 13.4.2006, in RC No.577 of 2006, the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why disciplinary action shall not be taken against him in view of the conviction passed by the Criminal Court. Therefore, it is contended by the learned senior counsel that in view of the contemplated disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner is having reasonable apprehension that the employer might have passed the order of dismissal, dismissing the petitioner from his service and in such a case, the petitioner would be put into very great hardship and irreparable loss. It is also contended by the learned senior counsel that the petitioner is having bright chance of acquittal in the appeal as there were several important grounds raised in the appeal. 4. The learned senior counsel also placed reliance on the decision of this Court passed in Crl.R.C.No.1294 of 2005, dated 17.2.2006 V.Chandrasekaran v. R.Nagarajan, reported in (2006) 1 M.L.J. (Crl.) 353. 4. The learned senior counsel also placed reliance on the decision of this Court passed in Crl.R.C.No.1294 of 2005, dated 17.2.2006 V.Chandrasekaran v. R.Nagarajan, reported in (2006) 1 M.L.J. (Crl.) 353. In that decision, M.Jeyapaul, J., has held that the Appellate Court can very well suspend not only the sentence of imprisonment but also suspend the conviction recorded by the trial Court if exceptional circumstances warrants. The learned Judge placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang and others, 1995(2) SCC 513 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that: ".....in appropriate cases, the High Court on being satisfied about the need for suspending the order of conviction can very well grant interim stay of operation of the order of conviction, but the person approaching the High Court should invite the Court’s attention to the specific consequence which is likely to fall upon conviction, so as to enable the Court to apply its mind on that point before granting the stay." 5. As far as this case is concerned, the learned senior counsel brought to my notice that the employer not only not complied with the order of this Court, viz., staying the suspension order, but also went one step further and initiated proceedings by giving the show cause notice dated 13.4.2006, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why disciplinary action shall not be taken against him. It is also specifically submitted by the petitioner that in view of the show cause notice dated 13.4.2006, there is a reasonable apprehension of dismissal from service itself. 6. Therefore, considering the undisputed fact that the employer already issued show cause notice dated 13.4.2006 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why disciplinary action shall not be taken against him, I am of the view that this is a fit case wherein this Court can very well suspend the conviction under Section 389(1) CrPC, in view of the decision made by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang and others (supra). 7. 7. For the foregoing reasons, stated above, I am inclined to pass an Order of Interim Suspension of the conviction for the offence under Section 3(i)(x) SC/ST.(P&A) Act 1989, imposed on the petitioner in S.C.No.193 of 2002, dated 25.9.2003, pending disposal of the Appeal.This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned.