Judgment :- Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. The petitioner had submitted that he was working as a Village Administrative Officer in Murungatholuvu village, Periyar District. While he was working as a Village Administrative Officer in Enjampalli Village, Erode Taluk, Periyar District, the Revenue Divisional Officer, had placed the petitioner under suspension by his proceedings, dated 27. 1991, on the ground that an enquiry into the grave charges was contemplated. The petitioner had challenged the said order of suspension by an original application in O.A.No.761 of 1992, filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. By an order, dated 212. 1992, the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was pleased to allow the original application granting liberty to the Revenue Divisional Officer to post the petitioner outside the District. Accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated and posted as a Village Administrative Officer, Pandianpalayam village in Perundurai Taluk by the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 2. 1993. 3. The petitioner had also submitted that the criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by the Inspector, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and the case was tried in C.C.No.103 of 1992, before the Special Court, Erode. By an order, dated 27. 1994, the said Special Court had convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.250/-, under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. As against the said order of the Special Court, in C.C.No.103 of 1992, the petitioner had preferred an appeal, in Criminal Appeal No.461 of 1994, before this Court. Further, this Court was pleased to suspend the sentence of imprisonment in Crl.M.P.No.5084 of 1994, pending disposal of Criminal Appeal No.461 of 1994. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail on furnishing security. Accordingly, the petitioner had been released on bail. While so, the petitioner was dismissed from service by an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.9014/91/A4, dated 10. 1994. The appeal filed by the petitioner, dated 212. 1994, was also rejected. 4. A reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents denying the claims made by the petitioner. It has been stated that the impugned orders had been passed in accordance with law and the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner ought not to be granted by this Court. 5. 1994, was also rejected. 4. A reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents denying the claims made by the petitioner. It has been stated that the impugned orders had been passed in accordance with law and the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner ought not to be granted by this Court. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned orders are bad in law as there was no conviction against the petitioner at the relevant point of time and this Court was pleased to suspend the sentence of imprisonment, pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal No.461 of 1994. When the sentence has been suspended, the mere payment of fine, which is the condition precedent in filing the appeal, cannot be taken as though the petitioner had undergone the sentence or that the guilt has been established. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents had submitted that the orders passed by the respondents against the petitioner are valid in law. It was further stated that this Court by its Judgment, dated 19. 2001, in Criminal Appeal No.461 of 1994, had confirmed the order of conviction passed against the petitioner by the Special Court. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be granted the reliefs as prayed for by him in the present writ petition. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the respondents. The main contention of the petitioner is that the order of conviction passed by the Special Court in C.C.No.103 of 1992, had been suspended by this Court and therefore, it cannot the basis to pass the impugned orders dismissing the petitioner from service. However, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that by an order, dated 19. 2001, made in Criminal Appeal No.461 of 1994, the order of conviction against the petitioner passed by the Special Court, in C.C.No.103 of 1992, has been confirmed. In such circumstances, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition cannot be granted. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.