JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan, C.J.—This petition is filed by the wife of Lance Naik Balwant Singh Parmar who joined Army in 12, Dogra Regiment before December, 1976 In the month of May, 1986, he had come on annual leave and after the expiry of the leave and also the extension thereof he returned back to duty on 25-7-1986. He had written a letter to his brother from the place of work on 13-7*1986 itself that he had arrived safely at the place of work and joined duty. Thereafter, the petitioner received a communication in September, 1986 that her husband was not traceable since 2nd of August. 1986. There was a lot of correspondence between the petitioner and the authorities. Ultimately the petitioner was informed that in the Court of Inquiry held In September, 1986, it was decided that the petitioners husband had deserted the Army. The petitioner had been making representations for directing a search of her husband and his whereabouts and also praying for appropriate reliefs in the event, her husband was found to be not alive. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition for quashing the orders passed by the respondents dismissing the services of her husband and directing them to accord family pension to her and other service benefits due to her husband. 2. In the reply filed by the respondents 1 to 3 in May, 1990, it was stated that the petitioners husband had informed his wife on 25-7-1986 and a copy of the letter written by the petitioners husband to his wife was enclosed as Annexure R-l It is seen from the annexure that it was not a letter written to the petitioner but it was written by the petitioners husband to his brother. There is nothing in the reply to show how a copy of the letter was available with the respondents. If they had intercepted the letter before it was posted and taken a copy thereof that should have been clearly mentioned in the reply. There is nothing in the reply to show how a copy of the letter was available with the respondents. If they had intercepted the letter before it was posted and taken a copy thereof that should have been clearly mentioned in the reply. The reply does not set out the possession or custody of the said letter before it was produced in Court Apart from that, it is a matter for regret that the person who had signed the reply had not even taken care to verify whether the annexure was addressed to the petitioner or the petitioners husbands brother, The statement contained in the reply that it was a letter written to the petitioner by her husband is erroneous, Even when the authorities choose to file affidavits in this Court, they do not take care to verify the correctness of the statements contained therein and they simply sign the affidavits or replies without applying their mind. It is high time that the authorities took care to verify the correctness of the replies or affidavits filed in the Court before they signed the same. 3. In the reply, it is further stated that petitioners husband absented himself without leave from the Unit w.e.f 2nd of August, 1986 at 23.15 hours. It is also stated that in the Court of Inquiry held in September, 1986 it was found that the petitioners husband bad deserted the Army, Reference is made to the subsequent correspondence between the petitioner and the respondents. Nothing has been set out in the reply as to any attempt having been made by the concerned authorities to verify whether the petitioners husband met with an accident or had expired. The annexures filed with the said reply do not in any way help this Court to find out what exactly happened to the petitioners husband. 4. Thereafter, pursuant to the directions of this Court, a copy of the record of the Court of Inquiry was filed It is seen from the said record that some witnesses were examined by the Court of Inquiry and ultimately a finding was rendered that the petitioners husband had absented himself without leave from 23 15 hours on 2nd August, 1986. Thereafter, pursuant to the directions of this Court, a copy of the record of the Court of Inquiry was filed It is seen from the said record that some witnesses were examined by the Court of Inquiry and ultimately a finding was rendered that the petitioners husband had absented himself without leave from 23 15 hours on 2nd August, 1986. A perusal of the said record shows that the petitioners husband had left all his belongings in the Camp including his identity card and pay book, If really he wanted to desert the Army he would not have left the identity card or the pay book behind. That itself gives rise to an inference that he did not voluntarily desert the Army and in all probability he met with some accident when he had gone out of the campus temporarily. Unfortunately, the authorities had not taken note of this aspect though they have recorded in the course of the inquiry that pay book and the identity card as well as other belongings, which were set-out in the appendix to the record, were left behind in the camp by the petitioners husband. 5. The authorises ought to have initiated the necessary steps to find out whether the petitioners husband had met with any accident or anything else had happened to him. Instead they kept quiet after declaring him a deserter. No steps were taken to verify his whereabouts, and they dismissed him from service It is only after the orders of this Court, passed in 1990, the authorities chose to address a communication to the Superintendent of Police, Mandi, to find out as to what happened to the petitioners husband A similar communication was sent in November. 1990 to the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur (Punjab) and the Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur (Punjab) The said authorities are said to have sent communications to the effect that the petitioners husband was not traceable. 1990 to the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur (Punjab) and the Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur (Punjab) The said authorities are said to have sent communications to the effect that the petitioners husband was not traceable. If the authorities had taken steps immediately after the disappearance of the petitioners husband from the working place and addressed communications to the Police in Gurdaspur something could have been found out about the petitioners husband, unfortunately, such steps were not taken by the authorities 6 On a direction by this Court, a further affidavit was filed as late as on 12th of October, 1992 That affidavit contains nothing but a repetition of what was stated earlier with regard to the communications sent to the police in Gurdaspur and the police officials in Mandi. The contents of the said affidavit are in no way helpful to this Court to ascertain the facts of the case In such circumstances, it is not possible for us to accept the findings given by the authorities that the petitioners husband had deserted the Army. In the absence of any inquiry by the authorities as to whether the petitioners husband met with an accident or some other reasons prompted him from absenting himself from the work place, it is not possible for this Court to hold that the petitioners husband had deserted the Army and -hat, he was rightly dismissed from the service. 7. However, it is seen that it is more than 10 years since the petitioners husband was not heard of either by the petitioner or the other family members or the respondents. In such circumstances, a presumption arises under the provisions of the Evidence Act that he was dead. Hence^ the petitioner will be entitled to get the family pension and other service benefits due to her husband in accordance with the Rules. 8, Hence, the respondents are directed to consider the entitlement of the petitioner for family pension and other benefits in accordance with the Rules on the footing that her husband is presumed to be dead. The authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner on that footing within a period of three months from this date and communicate their orders to the petitioner. 9. The wit petition is allowed on the above terms. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.