A railway employee who claimed his senior officer approved two extra days of leave with a WhatsApp 'OK' returned to duty to find himself suspended. Four days later, he was transferred from Prayagraj to Fatehpur. He challenged the transfer, arguing it was punishment for the leave dispute. Allahabad bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal ruled that the message did not conclusively establish official leave sanction and upheld the transfer, accepting the Railways' administrative justification, according to TOI.
The tribunal dismissed the application filed by Priya Ranjan Kumar, an employee of North Central Railway (NCR), holding that he had failed to establish that his transfer was driven by punitive intent. The Railways, meanwhile, argued that the transfer was required for the development of a new entry and booking office at Fatehpur Railway Station.
How a WhatsApp 'OK' led to a leave dispute
According to Kumar, a North Central railway employee's application, he had taken three days of leave from July 14 to July 16, 2025, to visit his native village. He subsequently sought an extension of two days through WhatsApp.
Kumar claimed that senior divisional commercial manager Himanshu Shukla approved the extension by replying 'OK' to his message. He relied on this response to argue that his additional absence had been authorised.
You Might Also Like:
However, when Kumar returned to duty on July 21, he was suspended. The Railways issued his transfer order on July 25, moving him from Prayagraj to Fatehpur. A disciplinary chargesheet followed on July 31.
Kumar challenged the transfer before the tribunal, arguing that it was not an ordinary administrative decision but a punitive measure connected to the disagreement over his leave.
Why CAT said the WhatsApp reply was not enough
The tribunal examined Kumar's reliance on the message and whether it established that his additional leave had been formally sanctioned by the competent authority.
Judicial member Rajnish Kumar Rai observed: "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."
In other words, a brief acknowledgement on a messaging platform could not, by itself, conclusively establish that the officer authorised to approve the leave had formally sanctioned it.
The ruling did not establish that WhatsApp messages can never be used as evidence in official disputes. Rather, it found that the particular 'OK' response was insufficient on its own to prove that the leave had been sanctioned by the competent authority.
Why the Railways defended the transfer
The Railways opposed Kumar's application, maintaining that his transfer was necessitated by administrative requirements rather than an intention to punish him.
Its explanation was that a new entry and booking office was being developed at Fatehpur Railway Station, creating an administrative need for the transfer.
After considering the arguments, the tribunal accepted the Railways' explanation. It found that the administration had demonstrated an independent reason for moving Kumar and that he had not established mala fides, or improper intent, behind the decision.
The timing of the suspension, transfer and subsequent chargesheet formed part of the dispute raised by Kumar. However, the tribunal concluded that the circumstances presented before it did not establish that the transfer was a disguised punishment for the leave issue.
What the Supreme Court's ruling meant for the case
The tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India. The judgment reiterates the principle that an administrative transfer cannot lawfully be used as a substitute for punishment.
Such a distinction matters because transfers are generally made to meet administrative requirements, whereas disciplinary action must follow the applicable rules and procedures. If a transfer is actually intended to punish an employee, its administrative label alone does not make it legally sustainable.
In Kumar's case, however, the tribunal found that the Railways had provided an independent administrative justification for the move to Fatehpur. It therefore did not accept his argument that the transfer was punitive.
CAT dismisses railway employee's transfer challenge
The Allahabad bench dismissed Kumar's original application by an order dated October 7, 2026, upholding the transfer order issued on July 25, 2025.
The case highlights the distinction between receiving an acknowledgement from a senior officer and establishing that leave has been sanctioned by the competent authority. For employees seeking leave extensions through messaging platforms, the central issue is whether the communication clearly establishes official approval under the applicable procedure.
In Kumar's case, the tribunal found that the WhatsApp 'OK' did not conclusively prove the additional leave had been authorised, while the Railways' stated administrative requirement provided a sufficient basis to uphold the transfer.
(Inputs from TOI)