ORDER D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 1. I.A. No. 1010 of 2008 has been filed by the appellant with a prayer for stay of the order of conviction dated 20.12.2007, passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi. 2. The petitioner/appellant was convicted for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to imprisonment. 3. The trial Court, while convicting the appellant had granted him provisional ball, which after admission of the present appeal for hearing, was confirmed till the disposal of this appeal by an order of this Court. The petitioner/appellant has now come up with a prayer for staying the order of his conviction on the ground that he has been served with a show cause notice by his superior in office, namely, the Deputy General Manager (P & IR). Central Coal Fields Ltd., Ranchi, on the basis of the judgment of conviction, as to why he should not be dismissed from service. 4. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offences is totally misconceived and it is against the weight of evidence on record and the appellant has got good grounds and is confident of succeeding in this appeal and of securing his acquittal from the charges. Learned Counsel adds that since the hearing of the appeal is not likely to be taken up in the near future, the appellant is likely to suffer irreparable loss on account of the possibility of his being dismissed from service on account of the judgment of conviction. It is further submitted that the urgency of the prayer for stay of the order of conviction is on ac-count of the fact that the entire members of the appellant's family are dependant upon his earnings and in the event of his dismissal from service, the entire family will be made to suffer. Learned counsel adds further that since this Appellate Court is an extension of the trial Court and since this Court is vested with powers of staying the execution of the conviction also, the discretion may be exercised in favour of the petitioner for staying of the Judgment of conviction. In support of his contention while learned Counsel placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalsai Khunte v. Nirmal Sinha and Ors. In support of his contention while learned Counsel placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalsai Khunte v. Nirmal Sinha and Ors. reported in and the judgment in the case of Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in 2007CriLJ1427 , reiterates that the circumstances as sated by the petitioner would amply demonstrate that in the event of the appellant's dismissal on account of the Judgment of conviction, the appellant and his family members would be subjected to serious adverse consequences. 5. Per contra, Mr. Rajesh Kumar learned Counsel for the respondent-CBI would argue that though the provisions under Section 389 of the Cr PC vests powers to the Appellate Court to stay the operation of the order appealed against, including the order of conviction, but the discretion to stay the order of conviction can be exercised only in rare cases depending upon the special facts of the case. Learned Counsel adds that in cases where the conviction is on corruption charges, it could be highly improper to suspend the conviction of the convicted public servant. In support of his contention, learned Counsel places reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K.C. Sareen v. CBI, Chandigarh reported in 2001CriLJ4234 and also in the case of Ravi Kant S. Patil v. Sarvabhouma S. Bagali reported in JT 2006 (1) SC 578 and also the judgment in the case of Navjot Singh Sidhu (supra). 6. While explaining the scope of the provisions of Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Supreme Court in quite a few case and recently in the case of Navjot Singh Sidhu (supra) has observed as follows: Section 389(1), Cr PC confers power not only to suspend the execution of sentence and to grant ball but also to suspend the operation of the order appealed against which means the order of conviction. Thus an Appellate Court can suspend or grant stay of order of conviction. However, in the same judgment, the Supreme Court has further observed as follows: But the person seeking stay of conviction should specifically draw the attention of the Appellate Court to the consequences that may arise if the conviction is not stayed. Unless the attention of the Court is drawn to the specific consequences that would follow on account of the conviction. Unless the attention of the Court is drawn to the specific consequences that would follow on account of the conviction. Further, grant of stay of conviction can be resorted to in rare cases depending upon the special facts of the case; 7. In both the cases, referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner/appellant i.e. the case of Lalsai Khunte (supra) and also the case of Navjot Singh Sidhu (supra), the issue relating to the exercise of discretion for stay of the order of conviction under Section 389(1), Cr PC was in the context of conviction of the appellant, in the first case, for the offences under Sections 420 and 458 of the IPC and in the second case, for the offences under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. In both the cases, it was shown that the order of conviction would prevent the appellants from filing their nomination to contest the assembly and parliamentary elections on the ground of disqualification and this would cause serious irreparable loss to them. In the present case, the conviction of the appellant is on charges of corruption under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thus, facts of the cases referred to in the judgments referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner/appellant are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 8. In the instant case, the ground taken by the appellant is that on account of the show cause notice issued to him by his employer, there is reasonable apprehension of his being dismissed from service and such dismissal would entail suffering not only to the appellant but also to the members of his family, who are dependant upon his earnings. Even if, such a consequence would follow on account of the order of conviction, it cannot be said that the appellant would suffer an irreparable loss since, if the order of conviction would be the only ground for dismissal from service, the opportunity would not be lost to the appellant to demand restoration of his employment with back wages if he succeeds in the appeal, and if the judgment of his conviction and sentence, passed by the trial Court is set aside. In other words, it cannot be said that the appellant would suffer any irreparable loss or any irreversible consequences. In other words, it cannot be said that the appellant would suffer any irreparable loss or any irreversible consequences. Furthermore, as per the settled principle of law, the discretion under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to stay the order of conviction can be exercised only in rare cases and in exceptional circumstances. In cases, where the public servant is convicted on corruption charges, this principle would not apply. In the case of K.C. Sareen v. CBI, Chandigarh 2001CriLJ4234 , the Supreme Court has held that it would be highly improper to suspend the order of conviction of a public servant, convicted on corruption charges. 9. In the light of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in the instant interlocutory application. The appellant's prayer for stay of the order of conviction is hereby dismissed. I.A. stands disposed of. Appeal dismissed.