ORDER : U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. 1. Petitioner/A3, in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeks suspension of conviction passed in C.C. No. 21 of 2008 by learned II Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Visakhapatnam. 2. In C.C. No. 21 of 2008 the petitioner and three others who are postal employees of Head Post Office, Kavali, Nellore District were charge sheeted for the offence of hatching criminal conspiracy and fraudulently and dishonestly closing eight RD accounts for the second time and withdrawing the maturity amount fully knowing well all those RD accounts were already closed after maturity and thereby causing wrongful loss to the Postal Department to a tune of Rs. 5,68,793/-. On full fledged trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced all the four accused. Petitioner/A3 is concerned, he was convicted for the offences under Sections 120B, 420, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "PC Act") and sentenced. 3. Now, in the instant petition, the petitioner/A3 submits that he is innocent and he has fair chances of success in the appeal and after his conviction the disciplinary authority and Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Prakasam Division issued notice dated 20.05.2014 to him to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him in pursuance of Rule 19 and in those circumstances if conviction awarded to him is not suspended, he may be removed from service. On this ground petitioner/A3 seeks suspension of conviction passed against him pending disposal of the appeal. 4. Heard both sides. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that unless conviction is suspended the petitioner will loose his job and thereby his family members will become destitutes. 6. Learned Special Standing Counsel while opposing the petition submitted that conviction of a public servant in a corruption case cannot be suspended for mere asking though on the ground of losing his job. On this aspect he relied upon the decision reported in State of Maharashtra v. Balakrishna Dattatrya Kumbhar (2012) 12 SCC 384 . He thus prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. In the light of above arguments, the point for determination is: "Whether there are merits in this petition to allow " 8. On this aspect he relied upon the decision reported in State of Maharashtra v. Balakrishna Dattatrya Kumbhar (2012) 12 SCC 384 . He thus prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. In the light of above arguments, the point for determination is: "Whether there are merits in this petition to allow " 8. A perusal of the judgment would show that petitioner/A3 being RD counter clerk conspired with other accused who are employees in Head Post Office, Kavali and cheated the Postal Department by dishonestly closing eight RD accounts for the second time and thereby caused wrongful loss to the department to a tune of Rs. 5,68,793/- for which he and other accused were convicted. Thus it is case of moral turpitude. The main ground on which he seeks suspension of conviction is that the departmental authorities issued show cause notice as to why action should not be initiated against him and hence, if conviction is not suspended pending appeal, he will have to loose his job. 9. This Court gave anxious consideration to the submissions of both sides. It must be noted that the petitioners cannot knock the doors of justice for suspending the conviction on the ground of their loosing job if conviction is not suspended. In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court turned down such pleas to suspend the conviction. In one of such instances, the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Balakrishna Dattatrya Kumbhar (supra) while deprecating the order of High Court of Bombay suspending the conviction pending appeal to save the appellant from loosing the job, has observed thus: "The aforesaid order is therefore, certainly not sustainable in law if examined in light of the aforementioned judgments of this Court. Corruption is not only a punishable offence but also undermines human rights, indirectly violating them, and systematic corruption, is a human rights' violation in itself as it leads to systematic economic crimes. Thus, in the aforesaid backdrop, the High Court should not have passed the said order of suspension of sentence in a case involving corruption. It was certainly not the case where damage if done, could not be undone as the employee/Respondent if ultimately succeeds, could claim all consequential benefits." 10. Thus, in the aforesaid backdrop, the High Court should not have passed the said order of suspension of sentence in a case involving corruption. It was certainly not the case where damage if done, could not be undone as the employee/Respondent if ultimately succeeds, could claim all consequential benefits." 10. Needless to say that the above observation of Apex Court applies with all its force to the case on hand as in the instant case also the plea of petitioner is that he would loose job unless conviction is not suspended. As observed by the Supreme Court, it is not a case where the petitioner/appellant would suffer irretrievable damage if the conviction is not suspended. If he ultimately succeeds in the appeal, he can claim all the consequential benefits. As such, it is not a rare case to exercise the discretion under Section 389 Cr.P.C. 11. Accordingly, this Crl. A.M.P. No. 891 of 2014 is dismissed.