ORDER : (Subba Reddy Satti, J.) The Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings, issued by respondent No.3 vide R.C.No.1542/A4/2023 dated 10.08.2023, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service. 2. The petitioner’s case, in brief, is that he along with his mother and sister was accused in S.C.No.346 of 2013 on the file of learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge–cum-Special Judge for trial of Offences against women, Anantapuramu, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘I.P.C.’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘D.P. Act’). By the calendar and judgment dated 10.05.2023, the petitioner was found guilty of the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act and Section 498-A of IPC and he along with his mother was convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the said calendar and judgment, petitioner filed Crl.A.No.410 of 2023. In the appeal, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2023 under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. to suspend the sentence, dated 10.05.2023 imposed in S.C.No.346 of 2013. By order dated 12.05.2023, execution of sentence of imprisonment passed against the petitioner and his mother was suspended on certain conditions, pending disposal of the criminal appeal. 3. Be that as it may, respondent No.3 issued a show cause notice vide Rc.No.1542/A4/2023 dated 07.06.2023, directing the petitioner to submit an explanation as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner filed I.A.No.2 of 2023 in Crl.A.No.410 of 2023 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking a stay of conviction. By order dated 20.06.2023 the conviction against the petitioner was stayed, duly recording reasons. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an explanation dated 23.06.2023 to the show cause notice, by annexing the copy of the order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in Crl.A.No.410 of 2023. After considering the explanation, by proceedings impugned, the petitioner was dismissed from service with immediate effect. Impugning the same the above writ petition was filed. 5. Heard, Sri Marri Venkata Ramana learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government pleader Services-I. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions as per the averments made in the writ affidavit. Learned Assistant Government pleader supported the impugned in the writ petition. 7. The point for consideration is whether the proceedings impugned in the writ petition are sustainable? 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions as per the averments made in the writ affidavit. Learned Assistant Government pleader supported the impugned in the writ petition. 7. The point for consideration is whether the proceedings impugned in the writ petition are sustainable? 8. As seen from the material on record, there is no dispute that the petitioner was convicted in S.C.No. 346 of 2013. In the statutory appeal, the sentence awarded in Sessions Case was suspended and later conviction was also stayed, in two different interlocutory applications mentioned supra. While granting the stay of conviction, it was observed as follows: “It is also pertinent to mention here that the present Criminal Appeal is of the year 2023 and it may take minimum 5 to 6 years for its disposal. Even by going through the evidence recorded in the trial Court, prima facie, this Court feels that the petitioner No.1 has valid grounds in his favour. In the meantime, if the Department acts upon the show cause notice, petitioner No.1 may be dismissed from service, in which case, it would cause hardship if ultimately the appeal is allowed and conviction passed by the Court below is reversed. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie feels since there is remote chance of appeal being heard in near future, the order of conviction which has been passed by the trial Court in S.C.No.346 of 2013 has to be stayed. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the conviction recorded in the judgment dated 10.05.2023f in S.C.No.346 of 2013 on the file of the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge –cum- Special Judge for trial of offences against Women, Anantapuramu against the petitioner No.1/appellant No.1/A1 is stayed till disposal of the main appeal.” 9. Before proceeding further, one should know the difference between the sentence and conviction. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, (Henry Campbell Black, M.A., Revised 4th Edition, ST. Paul, MINN. West Publishing Co., 1968) Conviction: “In a general Sense, the result of a criminal trial which ends in a judgment or sentence that the prisoner is guilty as charged.” Whereas, Sentence: “The judgment formally pronounced by the court or judge upon the defendant after his conviction in a criminal prosecution, awarding the punishment to be inflicted.” Thus, a conviction establishes guilt, while a sentence determines the punishment for that guilt. 10. 10. Thus, once conviction is stayed the guilt itself is stayed and the guilt will not operate. In the appeal, filed by the petitioner, the Appellate Court, by recording reasons, stayed the conviction. 11. In Ravikant S. Patil v. Sarvabhouma S. Bagali, (2007) 1 SCC 673 , the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under: “It deserves to be clarified that an order granting stay of conviction is not the rule but is an exception to be resorted to in rare cases depending upon the facts of a case. Where the execution of the sentence is stayed, the conviction continues to operate. But where the conviction itself is stayed, the effect is that the conviction will not be operative from the date of stay. An order of stay, of course, does not render the conviction non-existent, but only non-operative.” 12. The operative portion of the order impugned reads as follows: “Now therefore in light of the instructions issued by the Government in Memo.No.1621/SPL.B/2001-I, GA (SPL.B) Dept Dt. 26.11.2001, under Rule 9(x) of APCS (CC & A) Rules, 1991 and by virtue of powers vested in me as Appointing Authority for Junior Accountants under AP Treasuries and Accounts Sub Ordinate Service Rules, it is here by ordered that D. Babu, Junior Accountant, Sub Treasury office, Hindupur is dismissed from service with immediate effect and his plea of stay from Hon’ble AP High Court is not considered.” 13. Notwithstanding the stay of conviction, passed in I.A.No.2 of 2023, respondent No.3, passed the order impugned. 14. Proviso to (x) of Rule 9 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short ‘the Rules’) enjoins the penalty of dismissal from service in case the Government employee is convicted in cases relating to misappropriation, bribery, bigamy, corruption, moral turpitude, forgery and outraging the modesty of a woman. However, once the conviction itself is stayed, the conviction stands nonoperative. Once the conviction is non-operative, the authority cannot invoke the proviso to (x) Rule 9 of the Rules and pass orders impugned in the writ petition. The case at hand, the conviction against the petitioner was stayed by this Court in criminal appeal and thus, in light of the ration laid down in Ravikant S. Patil’s case (supra), the conviction became inoperative from the date of stay. 15. The language employed in the order of respondent No.3, is prima facie, contemptuous. The case at hand, the conviction against the petitioner was stayed by this Court in criminal appeal and thus, in light of the ration laid down in Ravikant S. Patil’s case (supra), the conviction became inoperative from the date of stay. 15. The language employed in the order of respondent No.3, is prima facie, contemptuous. However, in view of the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, this Court refrains from initiating any proceedings against the said authority. 16. Given, the discussion supra, since the conviction in the judgment dated 10.05.2023 in S.C.No.346 of 2013 on the file of the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge –cum- Special Judge for trial of offences against Women, Anantapuramu against the petitioner has been stayed till disposal of the main appeal, the proceedings impugned are liable to be set aside. 17. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The proceedings in R.C.No.1542/A4/2023, dated 10.08.2023, issued by respondent No.3 are hereby set aside. Respondent No.3 shall reinstate the petitioner, forthwith. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.