petitioner, there was no pleading much less any evidence adduced to prove that the person who allegedly issued the whip was competent to do so. The first respondent could not prove by independent evidence that the whip was actually served on the petitioner. There was no legal proof for service of whip. The second respondent erroneously attributed notice and knowledge of the whip on the petitioner and proceeded to hold that she had deliberately absent from the meeting; it is alleged. The petitioner further alleges that the commission has not correctly appreciated the medical records relating to the petitioner. Exts.R2 to R8 are the medical records relating to the petitioner. It is pointed out that Exts. R2 to R4 proves the miscarriage and abortion and Exts. R5 and R6 prove the actual hospitalization on 19.11.2013. The petitioner further alleges that RW2, the doctor who treated the petitioner asserted before the commission that she had only 40% fitness when she was hospitalized. RW1 had specifically stated before the commission that even after the abortion, she had bleeding on 11.11.2013 and thereafter, her condition worsened and due to
