Does 'OK' reply by boss on WhatsApp amount to sanctioned leave? CAT answers

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Allahabad Bench recently held that an officer's response of 'OK' to a leave request on WhatsApp cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive proof that the leave was sanctioned by the competent authority. [Priya Ranjan v. Union of India]

Judicial Member Rajnish Kumar Rai made the observation while dismissing a railway employee's challenge to his transfer from Prayagraj to Fatehpur. He said,

"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 October 7 order 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 his application, he had availed three days of leave from July 14 to 16, 2025, to visit his native village. He subsequently sought an extension of leave for two days through WhatsApp. He claimed that Senior Divisional Commercial Manager Himanshu Shukla approved the request by replying 'OK'. However, when Kumar returned to duty on July 21, he was suspended. Four days later, he was transferred to Fatehpur. A disciplinary charge-sheet was subsequently issued on July 31.

Kumar argued that his transfer was not a routine administrative decision but a punitive measure connected to the dispute over his leave.

The Railways opposed the application, submitting 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 and held that the WhatsApp response did not establish that the competent authority had sanctioned the leave.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India, the Tribunal reiterated that transfers made as a substitute for punishment are legally unsustainable. However, it found that the Railways had demonstrated an independent administrative justification for Kumar's transfer.

The Tribunal concluded that Kumar had failed to establish mala fides or punitive intent behind the transfer. Accordingly, it dismissed his application.

Advocate Rakesh Kumar Dixit represented the applicant.

Advocate Anil Kumar appeared for the respondents.

[Read Judgment]