JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - Appellant No. 3 Abhaya Kumar alias Abhayapada Mishra has filed this Misc. Case with a prayer to suspend his conviction and sentence passed by the Learned Special Judge, CBI, Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No. 160 of 1999. 2. By the preceding order this Court has directed suspension of the sentence. Hence no further order regarding that is necessary. 3. The Appellant-Petitioner is an employee of the Rourkela Steel Plant. He being accused No. 14 along with thirteen co-accused faced trial before the Special Judge, CBI, Bhubaneswar in the aforesaid T.R. Case. The Learned Special Judge by Judgment 18-5-2007 has convicted him of the charges under Sections 120-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code as also u/s 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under each count of Sections 120-B and 420 Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000.00 under each count of Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4. According to Mr. G.N. Mohapatra, Learned Counsel for the Appellant Petitioner, in consonance with Section 389(1) Cr.PC this Court has wide power to suspend the conviction in a given case. He strenuously urged that the Petitioner being an employee of the Rourkela Steel Plant unless his conviction is suspended he may be terminated/suspended from service, evicted from his official quarters as a consequence of which the education of his school going children will suffer and besides he will also suffer other irreparable loss and it is a fit case where the conviction can be suspended. 5. The submission of Mr. Mohapatra is strongly repudiated by Mr. S.K. Padhi, Learned Counsel for the Union of India. He submitted that the Appellant Petitioner has been rightly convicted by the Court below and his conviction being of very serious charges, it is not a fit case where the same may be suspended. 6. In support of his contention Mr. Mohapatra relied on several decisions of different High Courts as also the decision of the Supreme Court reported in the case of Ram Narang v. Ramesh Narang, reported in (1995) 2 SCC 51. 6. In support of his contention Mr. Mohapatra relied on several decisions of different High Courts as also the decision of the Supreme Court reported in the case of Ram Narang v. Ramesh Narang, reported in (1995) 2 SCC 51. In the said decision the Supreme Court after considering all aspect observed that the Court can suspend the conviction or order appealed against, but then only if it is satisfied that the case is a fit one, where such power can be exercised. Thus suspension of conviction is not a matter of routine, but that power has to be exercised only if the Court is satisfied, after perusing the materials on record, that it is a fit case where the conviction needs to be suspended. 7. Mr. Padhi relying upon another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.C. Sareen Vs. C.B.I., Chandigarh submitted that suspension of conviction in consonance with Section 389 (1) Code of Criminal Procedure so far as cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act are concerned should be very restricted. According to him, a corrupt official should not be allowed to continue to hold a public office even after his conviction. 8. After perusing the decision in K.C. Sareen case (supra), it is found that the Supreme Court has observed: The legal position, therefore, is this: Though the power to suspend an order of conviction, apart from the order of sentence, not alien to Section 389 (1) of the Code, its exercise should be limited to very exceptional cases. Merely because the convicted person files 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 PC 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 (sic) such appeal could be heard soon after the filing of the appeal. But suspension of conviction of the offence under the PC Act, de hors the sentence of imprisonment as a sequel thereto, is a different matter. Corruption by public servant has now reached a monstrous dimension in India. Its tentacles have started grappling even the institutions created for the protection of the republic. Unless those tentacles are intercepted and impeded from gripping the normal and orderly functioning of the public offices, through strong legislative, executive as well as judicial exercise the corrupt public servants could even paralyse the functioning of such institutions and thereby hinder the democratic polity. Proliferation of corrupt public servants could garner momentum to cripple the social order if such mean are allowed to continue to manage and operate public institutions. When a public servant was found guilty of corruption after a judicial adjudicatory process conducted by a Court of law, judiciousness demands that he should be treated as corrupt until he is exonerated by a superior Court. The mere fact that an Appellate or revision forum has decided to entertain his challenge and to go into the issues and findings made against such public servants once again should not even temporarily absolve him from such findings. If such a public servant becomes entitled to hold public office and to continue to do official acts until he is judicially absolved from such findings by reason of suspension of the order of conviction it is public interest which suffers and sometimes even irreparably. When a public servant who is convicted of corruption is allowed to continue to hold public office it would impair the moral of the other persons managing such office, and consequently that would erode the already shrunk confidence of the people in such public institutions besides demoralizing the other honest public servants who would either be the colleagues or subordinates of the convicted person. If honest public servants are compelled to take orders from proclaimed corrupt officers on account of the suspension of the conviction the fall out would be one of shaking the system itself. Hence, it is necessary that the Court should not aid the public servant who stands convicted for corruption charges to hold only public office until he is exonerated after conducting a judicial adjudication at the Appellate or revision level. Hence, it is necessary that the Court should not aid the public servant who stands convicted for corruption charges to hold only public office until he is exonerated after conducting a judicial adjudication at the Appellate or revision level. It is a different matter if a corrupt public officer could continue to hold such public office even without the help of a Court order suspending the conviction. 9. Laying down the legal proposition, the Supreme Court has further held that in a case of conviction of a corrupt charge against a public servant, the High Court should not suspend the order of conviction during pendency of appeal, even if the sentence of imprisonment is suspended. It would be sublime public policy that the convicted public servant is kept under disability of the conviction in spite of keeping the sentence of imprisonment in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal or revision. 10. After hearing the Learned Counsel for both sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the touchstone of the ratio of the decisions in K.G. Sareen case supra, this Court is not inclined to suspend the conviction of the Appellant-Petitioner and rejects the prayer. 11. However, this Court feels that if the appeal is not disposed of early, the Appellant-Petitioner will be prejudiced. Therefore as a special case this Court directs that if the Appellants prepare ten sets of paper book of the case and submit the same before the Registry within six weeks from today and a move is made for early listing of the appeal for hearing, necessary orders will be passed. 12. The Misc. Case is accordingly disposed of. Misc. Case disposed of