Judgment S. N. Jha, J. 1. The petitioners seek quashing of the order as contained in annexure-9 by which petitioner No.2 has been informed that her husband, petitioner No.1, has been declared deserter, and the "connected orders". They also seek direction to the respondents to hold enquiry in respect of the absence of petitioner No.1 from duty, and to give him all consequential benefits. They also seek stay of arrest of petitioner No.1. 2. This writ petition is basically on behalf of petitioner No.1. It is not understandable how his wife has joined hands with him as a co-petitioner. As a matter of fact, it appears that it is the wife i. e. petitioner No.2 who has been making correspondences and representations on behalf of the husband keeping him in the background so much so that in the letter dated 30-5-96 written on behalf of the Director-General, medical Services (Army) in response to her petition dated 20-1-96 addressed to the Chief of the Army Staff, she had to be advised "that in case you are in correspondence with your husband or knows about his whereabouts, you should advise him to report to Adm. Bn. , AMC Centre and School, Luck-now". This was obviously because after the declaration of petitioner No.1 as deserter and issuance of the Apprehension Roll, he was kept in hiding and all correspondences etc. were made on his behalf by the wife. Be that as it may, I shall refer to petitioner No.1 as the petitioner in this order. 3. The petitioner is a Sepoy Driver in the Army Medical Corps. He proceeded on two months annual leave with effect from 10-6-95. According to the petitioner, during period of leave he fell seriously ill and was treated by one dr. I. M. Singh, Civil Assistant Surgeon, on 27-6-95. He sent an application for extension of leave on 9-7-95 on medical ground. On 14-8-95 the petitioner was informed that extension of annual leave was not sanctioned. In case he continued to be sick, he should get himself admitted in Military Hospital or District civil Hospital. According to the petitioner further, he reported for treatment in the Sadar Hospital at Hajipur, which was the nearest Civil hospital on 22-8-95. But since there was no proper treatment, he went to Military Hospital, danapur, on 24-8-95 where he was not admitted on the ground that his period of leave had expired. According to the petitioner further, he reported for treatment in the Sadar Hospital at Hajipur, which was the nearest Civil hospital on 22-8-95. But since there was no proper treatment, he went to Military Hospital, danapur, on 24-8-95 where he was not admitted on the ground that his period of leave had expired. These averments of the petitioner have been denied by the respondents in the counter-affidavit. The petitioner claims to have been treated by various doctors. I do not want to offer my comments regarding the petitioners case in this regard. Expression of opinion may, in fact, prejudice his case. Sometime in November 1995, the telegram as contained in Annexure-9 was sent informing the petitioners wife that the petitioner had already been declared deserter. 4. According to the respondents, by reasons of provisions of Sec.106 of the Army Act, 1950 , when an Army personnel, subject to the provisions of the said Act, remains absent from his duty without due authority for a period of 30 days a court of inquiry is to be held, as soon as practicable, to inquire into the absence of the person and if the court of inquiry is satisfied of the fact that such absence was without due authority or other sufficient cause, the person concerned is to be declared absent and if he does not afterwards surrender or is not apprehended, for the purpose of said act he is "deemed to be a deserter" It would be appropriate in this connection to refer to the relevant part of the aforesaid communication dated 30-5-96 sent to the petitioners wife on behalf of the Chief of the Army Staff, Annexure-12 to the rejoinder-affidavit as follows it is for your information that the charges of deserter against your husband and the declaration of him as a deserter will remain so till he surrenders himself voluntarily or he is apprehended and the due process of law established that he had valid reasons to remain absent from his unit and never had the intention to desert the Army" 5. Mr Teg Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioner has no objection to surrendering to the concerned authorities and, in fact, in response to annexure-12 he had gone to Lucknow and submitted a petition before Adm bn AMC Centre and School Lucknow where he was asked to plead guilty, whereafter he returned from Lucknow on 26-7-96 Counsel urged that the petitioner should not be compelled to plead guilty to the charge and the authorities should be directed to consider his defence. Mr Manu Shanker mishra, learned Additional Standing counsel, Central Government, appearing for the respondents, submitted that it is open to the petitioner to plead his innocence His defence, however, can be considered only after he surrenders before the authorities He pointed out that the declaration of being deserter is the consequence of unauthorised ab sence for a period exceeding 30 days, which is to be followed by summary court marshal proceeding in which the petitioner can plead his innocence counsel in this connection referred to the last paragraph of the aforesaid communication dated 30th May, 1996 (An nexure-12) to the effect that "the lesser charges of overstaying the leave duly granted to him, thus, can only be decided after your husband surrenders voluntarily and fresh enquiry is con ducted " Mr Teg Bahadur Singh ap parently being satisfied with the aforesaid stand of the respondents sub-mitted that the writ petition may be disposed of with suitable observations and directions 6. The stand of the respondents is quite clear and unambiguous Having noted the same, hardly any further observation or direction is required to be made The petitioner must surrender before the concerned authorities within a period of two weeks from today whereafter his case/defence will be considered in accordance with law 7. Before I conclude, I would like to observe that in case the authorities decide not to take any penal action against the petitioner and condone his default and in that process come to the conclusion that his illness was a pretext to avoid posting in Arunachal Pradesh, his conduct shall be taken into account for deciding the future posting according to rules with these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of order Accordingly