{"id":1865,"date":"2025-08-04T15:19:55","date_gmt":"2025-08-04T15:19:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/tezgyan.com\/index.php\/2025\/08\/04\/delhi-hc-orders-wipro-to-pay-rs-2-lakh-to-ex-employee-over-defamatory-termination-letter-tech-news\/"},"modified":"2025-08-04T15:19:55","modified_gmt":"2025-08-04T15:19:55","slug":"delhi-hc-orders-wipro-to-pay-rs-2-lakh-to-ex-employee-over-defamatory-termination-letter-tech-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/tezgyan.com\/index.php\/2025\/08\/04\/delhi-hc-orders-wipro-to-pay-rs-2-lakh-to-ex-employee-over-defamatory-termination-letter-tech-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Delhi HC Orders Wipro To Pay Rs 2 Lakh To Ex-Employee Over Defamatory Termination Letter | Tech News"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n

Last Updated:<\/span>

Abhijit Mishra filed a defamation suit against the company, alleging that the remarks made in his termination letter were defamatory and damaged his professional reputation<\/h2>\n
\"Rejecting<\/p>\n

Rejecting Wipro\u2019s argument that the letter had not been published to any third party and was addressed solely to Mishra, the court invoked the doctrine of compelled self-publication. (File pic\/PTI)<\/p>\n<\/figure>\n

In an extraordinary case, the Delhi High Court has directed IT major Wipro Limited<\/a> to pay Rs 2 lakh in damages to a former employee after finding that his termination letter was defamatory in nature.<\/p>\n

A bench led by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav was hearing a defamation suit filed by Abhijit Mishra, a former Wipro employee, who sought Rs 2.1 crore in damages and a fresh termination letter without any defamatory remarks.<\/p>\n

In a detailed 51-page judgment, the HC said, \u201cThis Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned termination letter, replete with stigmatic language and bereft of any foundation, constitutes actionable defamation.”<\/p>\n

Taking particular note of the use of the term \u201cmalicious conduct” in the letter, the court observed, \u201cThe remarks therein, couched in the use of the term \u2018malicious conduct\u2019, not only lack substantiation but also have a direct and deleterious impact on the future employability and professional dignity of the plaintiff.”<\/p>\n

It further noted, \u201cGiven the compelling factual matrix and the absence of any legitimate defence advanced by the defendant, the tortious injury suffered by the plaintiff warrants an intervention.”<\/p>\n

Mishra was employed at Wipro as a principal consultant. On June 5, 2020, the company issued a termination-relieving letter, which claimed that his conduct was \u201cmalicious” and had led to an \u201cirreparable breakdown” in the employer-employee relationship.<\/p>\n

Aggrieved by the allegations, Mishra filed a suit, arguing that the letter contained serious, unsubstantiated charges which maligned his character and damaged his reputation.<\/p>\n

He submitted that remarks such as \u201cmalicious conduct” and \u201ccomplete loss of trust” were baseless and intended to harm his future employment prospects.<\/p>\n

Wipro, in its defence, said that Mishra held a senior position requiring creativity and accountability, but instead of fulfilling his duties, he focused on building a self-image as a \u201cCrusader for Social Change” and was involved in activities unrelated to his official role.<\/p>\n

The court, however, found that the company failed to place any credible material on record to substantiate its allegations. \u201cIn the absence of a plea of truth or any attempt to substantiate the impugned remarks, the allegations remain entirely uncorroborated. To allow such unsubstantiated imputations to subsist would result in a continuing injustice, undermining the professional integrity of the plaintiff and frustrating the dignity attached to the pursuit of gainful employment,” the court said.<\/p>\n

Rejecting Wipro\u2019s argument that the letter had not been published to any third party and was addressed solely to Mishra, the court invoked the doctrine of compelled self-publication.<\/p>\n

It observed, \u201cThe plaintiff would be left with no alternative but to disclose the impugned termination letter to prospective employers. The defendant, being an employer itself, was, in all probability, aware of the fact that prospective employers would want to enquire about the antecedents of the plaintiff. Such disclosure, being a foreseeable and natural consequence of incorporating the defamatory remarks in the impugned termination letter, renders the act actionable in law.”<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the court allowed the suit and directed Wipro Limited to pay Rs 2,00,000 in damages to Mishra for the defamatory contents of the termination letter.<\/p>\n

News18 Tech delivers the latest technology updates, including phone launches, gadget reviews, AI advancements, and more. Stay informed with breaking tech news<\/a>, expert insights, and trends from India<\/a> and around the world<\/a>.\u00a0 Also Download the News18 App<\/a>\u00a0to stay updated!<\/span><\/div>\n

view comments<\/span><\/p>\n