H.R. Panwar, J.— This is second application seeking suspension of conviction. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the order impugned and the record of the trial Court. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant-appellant that because of conviction, the applicant-appellant, who is a Govt. employee on the post of Teacher, has been suspended by the employer and, therefore, the conviction may be suspended, so that the suspension from service can be revoked. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has relied on a decision of this Court in Abdul Razak vs. State of Rajasthan, 2005 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 251. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposes the suspension of conviction. Recently in Sumer Dan & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan, petitioner therein was convicted and the conviction was suspended for a limited period by this Court. The matter was carried to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Sumer Dan & Anr. (Petition for special leave to apeal (Crl.) No. 4569/2006). The Hon’ble Supreme Court has stayed the effect and operation of the order of this Court. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Rama Narang vs. Ramesh Narang & Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 513 , held as under: - “Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. empowers the Appellate Court to order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended pending the appeal. What can be suspended under this provision is the execution of the sentence or the execution of the order. 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 suspended would be required to be executed by the authorities.” 6. In Laxman Lal vs. State of Rajasthan, 2002 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 608, this Court, relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Rama Narang’s case (supra) held that it stands settled law that conviction can be suspended provided the conviction is executable. 7. In Laxman Lal vs. State of Rajasthan, 2002 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 608, this Court, relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Rama Narang’s case (supra) held that it stands settled law that conviction can be suspended provided the conviction is executable. 7. In K.C. Sareen vs. CBI, Chandigarh, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 584 , the Hon’ble Apex Court, in para 11, observed as under: - “The legal position, therefore, is this: though the power to suspend an order of conviction, apart from the order of sentence, is not alien to Section 389 (1) of the Code, its exercise should be limited to very exception cases. Merely because the convicted person filed an appeal in challenge of the conviction the Court should not suspend the operation of the order of conviction. The Court has a duty to look at all aspects including the ramifications of keeping such conviction in abeyance. It is in the light of the above legal position that we have to examine the question as to what should be the position when a public servant is convicted of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. No. doubt when the appellate Court admits the appeal filed in challenge of the conviction and sentence for the offence under the PC Act, the Superior Court should normally suspend the sentence of imprisonment until disposal of the appeal because refusal thereof would render the very appeal otiose unless such appeal could be heard soon after the filing of the appeal. But suspension of conviction of the offence under the PC Act, dehors the sentence of imprisonment as a sequel thereto, is a different matter.” 8. In the case of Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Admn.) vs. S. Nagoor Meera, (1995)3 SCC 377 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that if the accused government servant is acquitted on appeal or other proceedings, the order can always be revised and if the government servant is reinstated, he will be entitled to all the benefits to which he would have been entitled to, had he continued in service. 9. A similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu vs. A. Jaganathan, (1996)5 SCC 329 . 9. A similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu vs. A. Jaganathan, (1996)5 SCC 329 . In that case, on revision, the High Court suspended the sentence as well as conviction in exercise of powers under Sec. 389 (1) Cr.P.C. On appeal to Hon’ble Apex Court, the Apex Court set aside the order by which conviction was suspended by the High Court and observed that in such cases the discretionary power to order suspension of conviction either under Sec. 389 (1) or even under Sec. 482 of the Code should not have been exercised. 10.In view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred hereinabove, the suspension of conviction is not warranted. 11.In the result, the application seeking suspension of conviction is dismissed. * * * * *