Arijit Pasayat, C.J.

The appellant while working as an employee of the Kerala State Handloom Development Corporation Ltd. (in short'the Corporation') was dismissed from service of the Corporation on the basis that she has been convicted in a criminal case by the C.B.I. Court. Same was challenged in this case. Learned Single Judge in O.P. No. 18677 of 1997 found that the Kerala State Handloom Development Corporation Ltd. Service Rules (in short 'the Service rules') empowers the Corporation to take such action on the event of conviction and sentence passed by a criminal court. Same is the subject matter of challenge.

2. Two points have been urged in support of the Writ Appeal by the learned counsel for the appellant. Firstly, it is submitted that an appeal has been filed against the conviction and sentence and the appellate court has suspended the execution of sentence. Therefore, the automatic termination is without any basis. Secondly, it is submitted that no opportunity was granted before termination was effected. Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation submitted that in view of the specific provisions in clause 107 of the Rules and Clause 64(2) of the Manual for Disciplinary Proceedings (in short'the Manual') issued by the Government of Kerala, which is applicable to the Corporation, the order passed directing termination cannot be faultered

3. Factual position is undisputed. The appellant was convicted in C.C. No. 5 of 1994 by the Court of the Special Judge (SPE/ CBI) I. Under clause 107 of the service rules an employee, who was convicted for offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or any other law for the time being in force, shall be liable to be dismissed from service of the Corporation. Clause 64(2) of the Manual deals with cases where services of the concerned employee is found to be not in the interest of the Corporation.

It is to be noted that the appellant was placed under suspension from 22.1.1997 and the order of termination is dated 30.8.1997. It was observed that further continuance of the employee would not be in the interest of the Corporation.

4. We shall consider the effect of an order suspending execution of sentence. R.107 of the service rules do not provide that on suspension of execution of sentence by the Appellate Court the order of dismissal based on conviction stands obliterated and dismissed employee has to be treated under suspension till disposal of appeal by the Appellate Court. The service rules also do not provide for waiting disposal of the appeal, filed by the employee, by the Appellate Court for taking action against him on the ground of misconduct which has led to his conviction by a competent court of law. The order dismissing an employee from service on the ground of misconduct leading to his conviction by a competent court of law does not lose its sting merely because a criminal appeal is filed and the Appellate Court has suspended the execution of sentence. The suspension of execution of sentence is under S.389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (in short 'the Code'). The Appellate Court has power to suspend the execution of sentence and to release an accused on bail. When it is so done, the effect is that the sentence of conviction is for the time being postponed or kept in abeyance during the pendency of the appeal. In other words, by suspension of execution of sentence, an accused avoids undergoing sentence pending criminal appeal. But the conviction continues and is not obliterated. Consequently if the conviction is not obliterated, any action taken by the employer against the employee, which led to his conviction by the court of law does not lose its efficacy merely because Appellate Court has suspended the execution of sentence. This position was elaborately dealt with by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Ramesh Kumar (AIR 1997 SC 3531). The matter was also considered by the Apex Court in Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Administration),