Infant dies at state-run care facility: Andhra Pradesh High Court upholds staff termination

The order further said that in matters relating to employment, it is well known that “absolute proof is not required and what all required is preponderance of probability and the same cannot be said to be short” in the present case.

Justice Nyapathy Vijay heard a termination case of three staff members at a Sishugruha.

Staff terminated after baby’s death

On August 30, 2025, a 30-day-old boy was surrendered to Sishugruha in Anantapur. The baby weighed about 1.75 kg and was taken to the government hospital for a check-up and was given immunisation on September 4. On October 1, 2025, the infant was suffering from loose motions and was prescribed oral solutions. The following night, the baby was declared dead at 3.20 AM.

After the baby’s death, a three-member committee conducted an inquiry and found negligence in his care. A woman manager, a woman nurse and a woman were issued show-cause notices and later terminated from service.

The three women denied negligence and submitted their explanation, pleading innocence of negligence as well as the scope of their responsibility. It was argued that the doctor who last attended the child was not at the site. It was also submitted that the salaries of the staff were not paid from July, 2025, and the maintenance grant to maintain the Sishugruha, as well as maintenance per child, was also stopped from April, 2025, and these aspects were not taken note of in the proceedings. 

The social worker separately submitted that she was appointed as staff in June 2014, and her charter of duties primarily are filed duties i.e., effective implementation of the adoption services in the District, creating awareness for adoptions, preparing child study report and physical examination report etc., As per her Statement, she attended to the field work on the instructions of Project Director, ICDS and was not aware of the tragic incident. 

According to the statements of the employees, none had spoken about intimation being given to this petitioner to attend to duties on the night the baby died. 

Court backs negligence finding

The court observed that the three-member committee’s report disclosed a lack of coordination among the employees of Sishuruha and said the committee opined based on its visit to the facility and after recording statements of the employees. The court said it could not interfere with this opinion only if it was “perverse and wholly without any basis”, which was not the case here. 

The court also observed that it was “quite odd” that the child who was said to be in good health till 7.30 p.m. on 02.10.2025 expired shortly thereafter. It also noted inconsistencies in the employees’ statements, with the manager and nurse stating that the child suffered loose motions while the other said that the child vomited at the same time.

This inconsistency in the statements as to the cause of death and the narration of the employees working in Sishugruha does not inspire confidence in this court that the employees of Sishugruha were not negligent. It held that maintenance and salaries should be paid on time; many a time there are administrative delays in the release of funds, and such delays cannot be grounds to validate negligence. 

 The court, after consideration, dismissed the petitions filed by the manager and nurse as devoid of merit. However, it set aside the termination order against the social worker and directed authorities to re-examine her case in light of the nature of her duties.