ORDER The petitioner was employed as Additional Assistant Engineer in the Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, the 1st respondent herein. A trap was laid on him by the A.C.B., on 28.3.2003, and he was caught red-handed. Petitioner was prosecuted in C.C. No.26 of 2003 by the Special Court for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, for committing offences under Sections 7, 13(l)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). Through its judgment dated 1.2.2007, the Special Court convicted the petitioner, of the offences alleged against him and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two years, and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. Consequently, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 20.2.2007, dismissing the petitioner from service. Petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.230 of 2007 against the judgment of the Special Court. In Crl. M.P. No.295 of 2007, this Court passed an order, on 26.2.2007, suspending the sentence of imprisonment. In view of this development, the petitioner contends that the order of dismissal, passed against him, cannot be sustained in law. 2. Sri Karri Venkata Rama Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the only basis for such dismissal of the petitioner from service was, the judgment rendered by the Special Court, and once an important facet of the judgment is suspended, the order of dismissal cannot be sustained. He contends that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service, in view of the orders passed by this Court in Crl. M.P. No.295 of 2007. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the conviction against the petitioner is still operating, and in fact, the sentence of payment of fine was not stayed by this Court. He contends that the impugned order does not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity, and the petitioner can assail the same only, in the event of his appeal being allowed, and the conviction being set aside. 4. It is no doubt true, that the sole basis for dismissing the petitioner from service, through proceedings dated 20.2.2007 is the judgment rendered by the Special Court in C.C. No.26 of 2003. Under the relevant Service Regulations, it is competent for the 2nd respondent to dismiss an employee from service, if he is convicted in a criminal case, without the necessity of holding any independent departmental inquiry. 5. Under the relevant Service Regulations, it is competent for the 2nd respondent to dismiss an employee from service, if he is convicted in a criminal case, without the necessity of holding any independent departmental inquiry. 5. The petitioner was convicted of the offence alleged against him, under the provisions of the Act Sentence of imprisonment for two years, and fine of Rs.5,000/- was imposed. What was suspended by this Court is only a part of sentence, that is the one, relating to imprisonment. Neither the conviction, nor the sentence of payment of fine was suspended, and they are operating against the petitioner, even as on today. The mere stay of the part of the sentence does not have the effect of taking away the basis of the order of dismissal, passed against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of dismissal, passed against the petitioner, at this stage. At the most, the petitioner can renew his request, in the event of his success in the criminal appeal. 6. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the matter, depending upon the outcome of the Criminal Appeal No.230 of 2007. 7. There shall be no order as to costs.