Vedpal, J.:- On account of absence of 8 years from the service. Petitioner's services were dispensed with. 2. Feeling aggrieved with the punishment order the petitioner has approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition by holding that since the petitioner has not moved any application for leave and remained absent for about eight years, therefore his services were rightly came to an end. 3. The Financial Hand Book provide that in case a Government employee is under turned up for five years or more, his services will come to an end. Virtually it is a case of abandonment of services. In case an employee is absent without leave for inordinate period, keeping in view the facts and circumstances it may be presumed that he had abandoned the services. Under Section 108 of the evidence Act also a person who is absent for seven years or more, he shall be deemed to be declared as "dead". 4. Absence from duty in the beginning may be a misconduct but when absence is for a very long period, it may amount to voluntarily abandonment of service and in that eventually, the bonds of service come to an end automatically without requiring any order to be passed by the employer. 5. In M/S. Jeewan Lal (1992) Ltd., Calcutta Vs. Its workmen, AIR 1961 SC 1567 , the Apex Court held as under:- "....... If an employee continues to be absent from duty without obtaining leave and in an unauthorized manner for such a long period of time that an inference may reasonably be drawn from such absence that by his absence he has abandoned service, then such long unauthorized absence may legitimately be held to cast a break in continuity of service......... We would like to make it clear that........ there would be the class of cases where long unauthorized absence may reasonably give rise to an inference that such service is intended to be abandoned by the employee." 6. Similarly, in Shahoodul Haque Vs. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar & Anr., AIR 1974 SC 1896 , the Apex Court observed as under:- "The undenied and undeniable fact that the appellant had actually abandoned his post or duty for an exceedingly long period, without sufficient ground for his absence, is so glaring that giving him further opportunity to dis-prove what he practically admits, could serve no useful purpose. It could not benefit him or make any difference to the order which could be and has been passed against him. It would prolong his agony. On the view we have adopted on the facts of this case, it is not necessary to consider the further question whether any notice for termination of service was necessary or duly given on the assumption that he was not punished. We do not think that there is any question involved in this case which could justify an interference by us........... 7. For the purpose of termination, there has to be positive action on the part of the employer while abandonment of service is a consequence of unilateral action of the employee and the employer has no role in it. 8. In Syndicate Bank Vs. General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association & Anr., AIR 2000 SC 2198 ; and Aligarh Muslim University & ors. Vs. Mansoor Ali Khan, AIR 2000 SC 2783 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that if a person is absent beyond the prescribed period for which leave of any kind can be granted, he should be treated to have resigned and ceased to be in service. In such a case, there is no need to hold an enquiry for to give any notice as it would amount to useless formalities. 9. Similar view has been reiterated in V.C. Banaras Hindu University & Ors. Vs. Shrikant, AIR 2006 SC 2304 : (2006) 11 SCC 42 . 10. In view of the above, impugned order does not seem to suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. Writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.