A brief ‘OK’ on WhatsApp may acknowledge a message, but it does not necessarily establish that an employee’s leave has been formally approved. The Allahabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has made this distinction while rejecting a railway employee’s challenge to his transfer, holding that the response alone could not conclusively establish sanction by the competent authority.
In Priya Ranjan v. Union of India, Judicial Member Rajnish Kumar Rai also ruled that a transfer cannot automatically be branded punitive simply because disciplinary proceedings follow.
The case concerned Priya Ranjan Kumar, an employee of North Central Railway, who challenged his transfer from Prayagraj to Fatehpur.
According to Kumar, he had taken three days of leave from July 14 to 16, 2025, to visit his native village. He later sought an additional two days through WhatsApp, claiming that Senior Divisional Commercial Manager Himanshu Shukla had approved the extension by replying ‘OK’.
However, Kumar was suspended when he returned to duty on July 21. A transfer order followed on July 25, moving him to Fatehpur, and a disciplinary charge-sheet was issued on July 31.
Kumar maintained that the sequence of events indicated that the transfer was intended to punish him over the leave dispute rather than serve a genuine administrative purpose.
The Railways disputed this claim, explaining that the transfer was required in connection with the development of a new entry and booking office at Fatehpur Railway Station.
Tribunal finds no conclusive proof of leave sanction
The Tribunal declined to accept the WhatsApp exchange as definitive evidence that the leave extension had been authorised by the competent authority.
It observed that the employee’s reliance on the ‘OK’ response could not, by itself, establish that the leave had been sanctioned.
The Bench also examined whether the transfer was a disguised form of punishment. Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India, it reiterated that an administrative transfer used as a substitute for punishment would not be legally sustainable.
In this case, however, the Tribunal found that the Railways had provided an independent administrative reason for shifting Kumar to Fatehpur. The circumstances did not sufficiently establish that the transfer was driven by mala fide intentions or designed to penalise him.
Finding no grounds to interfere with the transfer order, the Tribunal dismissed Kumar’s application.
The ruling underscores an important distinction in workplace communications: a brief acknowledgement on a messaging platform may not, on its own, settle whether formal approval has been granted. It also reinforces that the legality of a transfer depends on its underlying purpose and justification, rather than merely on the timing of subsequent disciplinary action.