New Delhi, July 18 -- The Delhi high court has ruled that employers could face defamation charges if their termination letters indirectly force ex-employees to reveal dismissal reasons, thereby harming their reputation with new employers. A bench of justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav delivered the detailed verdict on Monday while dealing with a suit filed by a former employee of Wipro, who sought Rs.2 crore as damages from the company for allegedly issuing a defamatory termination letter containing adverse remarks. The petitioner Abhijit Mishra also sought a fresh termination letter, asserting that the current letter was replete with defamatory, derogatory assertions that maligned his character and had resulted in serious damage to his reputation. Opposing the plea, Wipro's counsel said the statements constituted factual assertions, necessitated by his conduct including his repeated correspondence with various internal and external entities and were merely reflective of circumstances that compelled the company to formally articulate its position. The counsel further submitted that there was no defamation since the letter was solely delivered to Mishra and thus the statements could not be said to have been published. Mishra, the lawyer said, himself had made the remarks known to third parties on his own volition. Invoking the American doctrine of compelled self-publication which allows a person to sue for defamation even if they themselves were the one to disclose the defamatory statement -provided the disclosure was made under compulsion, the bench held, "Accordingly, an employer who, by internal mandate or statutory compulsion, obliges a former employee to reveal the reason for termination cannot exonerate itself from liability for every foreseeable instance of that compelled disclosure and the reputational injury it occasions. This contention is untenable in view of the doctrine of compelled self publication, which is attracted in the present case owing to the respective position of the parties and their relationship inter se." In his 51-page judgment, justice Kaurav observed that Wipro, while including the defamatory remarks, was aware that Mishra would likely be compelled to disclose the contents of the termination letter to prospective employers in the future, and thus including such statements amounted to publication. Accordingly, the court directed Wipro to pay Rs.2 lakh as damages to Mishra and issue a fresh termination letter, saying that the terms used in the letter had the effect of clouding Mishra's professional commitment, ethics and competence in the eyes of potential employers. The judge held that the letter was framed in a language intended to tarnish his reputation, impair his ability to pursue re-employment with dignity, and was replete with stigma and insinuations....