Law Can’t Allow Reputational Harm Born Of Unsupported Accusations: Delhi High Court Awards ₹2L To Wipro Employee In Defamation Case

The Delhi High Court has awarded Rs. 2 lakh as general compensatory damages to an employee of Wipro Limited, for the alleged defamatory remarks in the termination letter.

A Suit was filed by the aggrieved employee, claiming damages of Rs. 2,10,00,000/- for alleged defamation by his employer, asserting that the imputations made in the termination letter are contrary to the employment contract and caused serious injury to his reputation and goodwill.

A Single Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav emphasised, “In the absence of any valid defence or evidentiary justification offered by the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled to the protection of his reputation. The law cannot allow reputational harm, born of unsupported accusations, to continue unabated where such harm significantly impacts an individual's career and prospects. Relief must, therefore, be tailored to redress the wrongful infliction of reputational injury and to vindicate the plaintiff’s right to dignity in the sphere of employment.”

The Bench was of the opinion that such injury, being devoid of factual support and yet carrying grave implications for the Plaintiff’s future employability and professional standing, warrants the intervention of the Court by way of appropriate and equitable relief.

Abhijit Mishra appeared as Plaintiff in person while Advocate Mandeep Singh Vinaik appeared for the Defendant.

Facts of the Case

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant i.e., Wipro Limited as a Principal Consultant from March 2018 to June 2020. His employment was governed by a contract and Clause 10 thereof expressly provided that the employment could be terminated without any reason, by either party upon serving the requisite notice period, i.e., one month during the probationary period and two months after confirmation. In June 2020, the Defendant through its authorized representative issued a termination/relieving letter.

The letter attributed the conduct of the Plaintiff as ‘malicious’ and further claimed that his actions had resulted in an irreparable breakdown in the employer-employee relationship. Being aggrieved by the allegedly defamatory remarks contained in the termination letter, the Plaintiff instituted the Suit seeking the issuance of a fresh termination letter expunging the observations impugning the Plaintiff’s character and professional integrity. According to the Defendant, the remarks impugned by the Plaintiff were merely reflective of his conduct during the tenure of his employment and were necessitated by the circumstances culminating in his termination.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “The Court takes due note of the language employed in the impugned letter, particularly the assertions referring to "malicious conduct", which, by their very nature, were bound to surface in the course of future employment. It was a matter of common knowledge and ordinary prudence that in matters such as job applications, background verification, or reference checks, the plaintiff would be left with no alternative but to disclose the impugned termination letter to prospective employers.”

The Court added that 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 and such disclosure, being a foreseeable and natural consequence of incorporating the defamatory remarks in the impugned termination letter, renders the act actionable in law.

“The Court, therefore, finds that the plea raised by the defendant regarding the absence of publication is unsustainable. The foreseeable circulation of the impugned termination letter, through compelled disclosure by the plaintiff, satisfies the requirement of publication and thereby fulfils the second essential element required to constitute defamation”, it said.

The Court noted that the impugned termination letter issued by the Defendant did not merely effectuate the cessation of the employment relationship, but was couched in a language intended to tarnish the Plaintiff’s reputation and to impair his ability to pursue re-employment with dignity.

“Notably, the defendant has failed to place on record any credible evidence, either testimonial or documentary, to establish that the reputational harm suffered by the plaintiff was predicated on any demonstrable act of misconduct. In 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”, it remarked.

The Court held that the remarks made in the impugned termination letter are defamatory and fulfil all essentials to constitute the tort of defamation. It further emphasised that the Court must be mindful that the award of damages or compensation on account of reputational loss is not a means to unjustly enrich a Plaintiff and thus, the computation must restrict itself to the overall impact of the reputational harm on the mind and life of the defamed person, insofar as it could be inferred from the circumstances on record.

“However, no case for awarding exemplary damages is made out by the plaintiff in the present case, and thus, the analysis of the said principles in the present set of facts is unwarranted. The damages in the instant case are to be quantified at large, in light of the principles for awarding general compensation”, it also noted.

Conclusion

The Court was of the view that damage is implicit in a case involving loss of reputation and an assault on the reputation of a person is per se actionable, which is presumed to have caused damage to the sufferer; thus, general compensation is warranted.

“In view of the foregoing findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned termination letter, replete with stigmatic language and bereft of any foundation, constitutes actionable defamation. The remarks therein, couched in the use of the term "malicious conduct", not only lack substantiation but also have a direct and deleterious impact on the future employability and professional dignity of the plaintiff. Given 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”, it added.

The Court, therefore, awarded a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs as general compensatory damages to the Plaintiff, to redress the reputational harm, emotional hardship, and loss of professional credibility occasioned by the conduct of the Defendant.

“… the ends of justice would be ill-served if the defamatory remarks contained in the termination letter were permitted to remain on record, thereby continuing to impair the professional prospects of the plaintiff and his dignity. Therefore, in furtherance of the principles of equity and with a view to effectuating complete restitution, the Court hereby directs that the remarks with respect to the professional character of the plaintiff be expunged. Further, a fresh termination letter shall be issued to the plaintiff devoid of any defamatory content, and consequently, the impugned termination letter shall cease to be of any effect insofar as the defamatory content is concerned”, it ordered and concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court partly decreed the Suit and awarded damages to the Plaintiff.

Cause Title- Abhijit Mishra v. Wipro Limited (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5678)

Appearance:

Advocates Mandeep Singh Vinaik, Ragini Vinaik, and Gaikhuanlung.

Click here to read/download the Judgment