The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Allahabad Bench, has held that an officer’s ‘OK’ response to a leave extension request on WhatsApp cannot, by itself, conclusively establish that the leave was sanctioned by the competent authority.

Judicial Member Rajnish Kumar Rai made the observation while dismissing a railway employee’s plea challenging his transfer from Prayagraj to Fatehpur. “The applicant’s reliance upon the WhatsApp response ‘OK’, therefore, cannot by itself be treated as conclusive proof of sanction of leave by the competent authority,” the Tribunal observed.

The order dated October 7 was passed on an application filed by Priya Ranjan Kumar, an employee of North Central Railway, challenging his transfer order dated July 25, 2025.

According to Kumar, he had taken three days of leave from July 14 to 16, 2025, to visit his native village. He subsequently sought a two-day extension through WhatsApp, claiming that Senior Divisional Commercial Manager Himanshu Shukla had approved his request by replying ‘OK’.

However, Kumar was suspended when he returned to duty on July 21. He was transferred to Fatehpur four days later, and the Railways subsequently issued a disciplinary charge-sheet against him on July 31.

Kumar contended that his transfer was not a routine administrative decision but a punitive measure arising from the dispute over his leave.

Opposing the application, the Railways submitted that the transfer was necessitated by the development of a new entry and booking office at Fatehpur Railway Station.

The Tribunal accepted the Railways’ explanation, holding that the WhatsApp response did not conclusively establish that the competent authority had sanctioned the extension of leave.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India, the Tribunal reiterated that a transfer imposed as a substitute for punishment is legally unsustainable. However, it found that the Railways had established an independent administrative reason for Kumar’s transfer.

Finding that Kumar had failed to establish mala fides or a punitive intent behind the transfer, the Tribunal dismissed his application.

Advocate Rakesh Kumar Dixit appeared for the applicant, while Advocate Anil Kumar represented the respondents.