JUDGMENT 1. - Heard on the stay application moved under Section 389 of Code of Criminal Procedure for staying the conviction order dated 02.08.2007. 2. It is not disputed that this Court has suspended the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant vide its order dated 10.08.2007. 3. The accused-appellant is a Government servant and at the time of incident, he was working as -Teacher Grade-III at Primary School, Meenapada, Panchayat Samiti-Bandikui. After the incident on 17.05.2005, the accused-appellant was suspended and now he is under suspension and posted under the Block Education Officer, Sikra (Dausa). 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant-appellant placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan , dated 13.08.2002, wherein the Division Bench has considered the fact that the applicant is a teacher and, therefore, unless the conviction is suspended, being a Government employee, he cannot join his service. He further placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shivlal v. State , dated 23.07.2007, whereby the Coordinate Bench of this Court has considered the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab, reported in 2007 AIR SCW Page 787 . The Coordinate Bench considering the law laid down by Apex Court observed that granting of stay is not a rule but an exception to be restored to in a rare case depending upon facts of a case. It is true that where execution of sentence is stayed, conviction continues to operate and where conviction, itself, is stayed, effect of conviction becomes inoperative from the date of stay; and it goes without staying that stay order does not render conviction non-existent but only make it inoperative. 5. It is true that where execution of sentence is stayed, conviction continues to operate and where conviction, itself, is stayed, effect of conviction becomes inoperative from the date of stay; and it goes without staying that stay order does not render conviction non-existent but only make it inoperative. 5. Similar view has been taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kanhaiya v. The State of Rajasthan, reported in 2001 (3) WLC (Raj.) Page 411 , where accused was convicted with the aid of Section 149 to undergo life imprisonment, and while working as gang man in Railway was served with a notice under Rule 14 (2) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appellate) Rules, 1968 and apprehending his dismissal or removal from service, accused file application under Section 389 (1); after taking into consideration material on record and while looking to the consequences which the accused has to face as a result of conviction impugned, resulting into loss of his employment, Division Bench of this Court considered it proper to suspend conviction pending disposal of the appeal. 6. Further, in the case of K.C. Sareen v. CBI, Chandigarh, reported in 2001 (6) SCC Page 584 , wherein the public servants are convicted under Prevention of Corruption Act, Apex Court observed that order of conviction should not be suspended, even if the sentence of imprisonment has been suspended till disposal of the appeal. 7. Learned Counsel for the applicant-appellant also placed reliance on the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Laxman Lal & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in 2006 (1) RLW Page 121 , wherein even after termination of service, order of conviction was suspended till the disposal of the appeal. 8. In the, present case in hand, the applicant-appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 307, IPC and sentenced for three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 15,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six month's rigorous imprisonment. 9. On account of conviction the services of the appellant has been terminated by his employer. It is not disputed that the termination order has not been challenged. 10. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of complainant submits that enhancement of sentence, the complainant has also filed a revision petition before this Court. 11. 9. On account of conviction the services of the appellant has been terminated by his employer. It is not disputed that the termination order has not been challenged. 10. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of complainant submits that enhancement of sentence, the complainant has also filed a revision petition before this Court. 11. Having heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned Counsel for the complainant as well as learned Public Prosecutor and upon careful perusal of judgments referred before me, it is not disputed that on account of conviction, the appellant has been terminated from the services and certainly he has been deprived of from his employment. It will not only cause irreparable loss to the accused-appellant but also his family. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it proper to allow the stay application and stay the conviction order dated 02.08.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa in Sessions Case No. 47/2005 till the disposal of the appeal, subject to the condition that the accused-applicant shall deposit Rs. 15,000/- as penalty.Stay Application Allowed. *******