Judgment M. M. S. Bedi, J. 1. Petitioner has been convicted on January 29, 2008 in a case originally registered at the instance of his wife under Sec.498a. Thereafter, petitioner has filed an appeal for stay of conviction. Vide order dated 12.12.2008, Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa has, after admitting the appeal, refused to suspend the conviction on the ground that conviction can be suspended only in rare cases, though lower appellate Court has formed an opinion that in view of judgment of Navjot Singh sidhu V/s. State of Punjab,2007 (1) Apex Court Judgments 463 (SC ). the Court got jurisdiction under Sec.389 Cr. P. C. to suspend the conviction while suspending the sentence. 2. Learned counsel for the complainant has put in appearance and sought intervention to oppose the application for quashing of order dated 12.12.2008, contending that the petitioner has treated his wife with cruelty and has misappropriated the dowry articles, as such conviction order has been passed. On the basis of conviction, he deserves to be dismissed from service. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also got an apprehension on of dismissal from service from the letter issued by Director General of Police Punjab (Annexure p3) regarding general decision that convicted police officials should not be permitted to work in the department. It is an admitted fact that till date neither any notice has been issued to the petitioner nor any steps have been taken to dismiss him from service. 4. Learned State counsel has placed reliance on State of Punjab V/s. Deepak Mattu2008 Cri. IJ 322. to contend that conviction should not generally be stayed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through all the circumstances of this case. So far as Deepak muttus case (supra) is concerned, it pertains to the employees who are convicted in cases of corruption. It has been desired that the officials who have been convicted for corruption charges should not generally be granted the relief of "stay of conviction" during the pendency of their appeals. So far as petitioner is concerned, he has been convicted on the basis of allegations of his wife in matrimonial dispute. An employee facing conviction cannot be penalised solely on the basis of his conviction order. So far as petitioner is concerned, he has been convicted on the basis of allegations of his wife in matrimonial dispute. An employee facing conviction cannot be penalised solely on the basis of his conviction order. No doubt it is a case of moral turpitude or on the basis of conduct leading to conviction, he can be proceeded against at departmental level and granted departmental punishment. In the present case, though no order has been passed against the petitioner, but in view of general orders issued by the Director general of Police, Punjab, Annexure P3, the petitioner can be granted relief under Sec.389, Cr. P. C, staying the conviction during the pendency of his appeal. 6. In view of the above circumstances, it is ordered that the conviction of the petitioner will remain suspended during the pendency of his appeal pending before the lower Appellate Court. Disposed of. Petition allowed.