ORDER
Ashok Bhan, J.
1. Working as an Executive Engineer (Mechanical), petitioner earned certain adverse reports including a warning which was kept on his confidential record. Because of the adverse remarks in the ACR petitioner was not promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer (Mechanical).
2. Petitioner filed O.A. No. 2069 of 1989 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, the ‘Tribunal’), stating therein that the reports given to him by his superior were biased as he was enemical towards him. He claimed promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer (Mechanical) ignoring the adverse remarks made against him.
3. Tribunal did not accept the various pleas raised by the petitioner and dismissed the O.A. No. 2069 of 1989. Later on, petitioner filed a review petition seeking review of the order passed in O.A. No. 2069 of 1989. The same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the original order passed in O.A. No. 2069 of 1989 and the subsequent order passed in the review petition, petitioner filed special leave petition in the Supreme Court of India. The Apex Court declined to entertain the SLP and dismissed the same thereby affirming the orders passed by the Tribunal.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed representations Annexure-A, dated 22-9-1996 seeking cancellation of the order administering warning to him and also for replacing the ACRs, between 1983-84 to 1987-88 on the ground that he was producing additional documents in support of the allegations made by him against his superior officer Sri Bhandari.
5. Respondents refused to entertain the representation and by Order Annexure-A15, the petitioner was informed that in view of the earlier orders passed by the Tribunal which were later on affirmed by the Supreme Court, his representation Annexure-A14 could not be considered.
6. Against the rejection of his representation, the petitioner filed a fresh application before the Tribunal which has been dismissed by the impugned order. It has been observed by the Tribunal that the petitioner could not be permitted to re-agitate the same matter which stood concluded by the earlier order passed by the Tribunal and confirmed by the Supreme Court.
7. We agree with the view taken by the Tribunal. Petitioner cannot be permitted to re-agitate the same matter on the ground that he had additional documents in his possession. His allegations that the adverse reports given to him were vitiated because of the prejudice of Mr. Bhandari was not accepted by the Tribunal earlier. It was held that the petitioner was not entitled to the promotion in view of the adverse entries made against him. Petitioner on a later date, could not be permitted to re-agitate the same matter on the ground that he was producing additional documents in support of the allegations which he had made against his superior officer Mr. Bhandari. Representation An-nexure-A14 is not a statutory representation. If such representations are entertained and the applicants permitted to re-agitate the matters already concluded, then, there can be no end to any litigation. A litigant is
entitled to one trial. He is not entitled to multiple trials on the ground that he had discovered additional evidence in support of his case.
8. We affirm the order of the Tribunal. Dismissed.
