JUDGMENT The appellant who was a sub-cashier in the Sub-Treasury department at Mishrikh has been convicted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur on 9 June 2015 of offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Penal Code and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of seven years together with a fine of Rs.3 lacs. On 26 June 2015, the appellant was dismissed from service under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. In view of the grounds of conduct which led to his conviction on a criminal charge, proviso (a) of the second proviso to Article 311 has been applied. The appellant has filed a criminal appeal1 before the Sessions Judge, Sitapur. By an order dated 1 August 2015, the Sessions Judge, Sitapur issued the following directions: "The appeal has been admitted. The appellant/accused has been granted bail during pendency of the appeal and realization of the fine imposed by the learned court below has been stayed. The execution of sentence/conviction under appeal is suspended till disposal of the appeal." 2. The appellant then moved a writ petition before the learned Single Judge seeking a direction for the disposal of a departmental appeal filed by him against the order of dismissal, "keeping in view" the fact that the order of conviction has been suspended. The appellant also sought a mandamus to reinstate him in service with effect from 1 August 2015. 3. The learned Single Judge has declined to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The order of dismissal has been extracted in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and a copy thereof is also annexed to the paper book in the special appeal. It is evident from the order and, in this regard we agree with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge, that in the present case, the dismissal from service was not treated as an automatic consequence arising from the conviction, but the State Government had applied its mind to the conduct which led to the conviction on a criminal charge. 4. As a matter of fact, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has informed the Court that the departmental appeal which was filed against the order of dismissal has also been dismissed in the meantime on or about 17 October 2015. 4. As a matter of fact, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has informed the Court that the departmental appeal which was filed against the order of dismissal has also been dismissed in the meantime on or about 17 October 2015. If that be the position, the primary relief which was sought in the writ petition for the disposal of the departmental appeal has become infructuous. No mandamus can be issued to the State for reinstating the appellant in service merely on the basis of the circumstance that the Sessions Judge has stayed the conviction/sentence. 5. The Supreme Court in a line of precedent commencing with Ram Narang vs. Ramesh Narang2 has held that while Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 may authorize the grant of a stay not only of the order of sentence but of the conviction as well, this power should be exercised in an exceptional case where the attention of the appellate court has been drawn to the consequences which may flow out of the conviction not being stayed, if a precise request in that regard is made and the appellate court has applied its mind to this aspect before staying suspension of the conviction. Ex facie the order of the Sessions Judge dated 1 August 2015 does not indicate this but we need not rest the present judgment on this obvious deficiency in the order of the learned Sessions Judge staying the conviction and sentence. 6. In our view, this was not a case where an order of reinstatement should be issued during the pendnecy of the criminal appeal. If the appellant is eventually acquitted, he would be entitled to consequential reliefs. However, having due regard to the fact that the conviction against the appellant is on a charge of embezzlement and that he was a Treasury Officer, an order of reinstatement was clearly not warranted. This is also the principle which emerges from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Administration), Madras vs. S Nagoor Meera3 which has been recently followed by the Supreme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. B Jagjeevan Rao4. 7. The grant of relief in terms of reinstatement at this stage was hence not warranted and the judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to do so does not call for interference in the special appeal. 8. 7. The grant of relief in terms of reinstatement at this stage was hence not warranted and the judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to do so does not call for interference in the special appeal. 8. The special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.