Judgment :- RAJU J. By consent of both the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal when the petition for injunction with the vacating injunction petition filed by the Department, came up for hearing The above writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to forbear from proceeding with the charge-sheet issued against the petitioner in his letter No. Conf. 506A(2) of 1991 dated March 24, 1993, whereunder a charge-sheet framed against the petitioner for an alleged misconduct under section 288 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 "If any person- (a) who is a legal practitioner or an accountant is found guilty of misconduct in his professional capacity by any authority entitled to institute disciplinary proceedings against him, an order passed by that authority shall have effect in relation to his right to attend before an income-tax authority as it has in relation to his right to practise as a legal practitioner or accountant, as the case may be ; (b) who is not a legal practitioner or an accountant, is found guilty of misconduct in connection with any income-tax proceedings by the prescribed authority, the prescribed authority may direct that he shall thenceforth be disqualified to represent an assessee under sub-section (1)." Learned counsel also invited my attention to rule 60 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which is as follows "Where the prescribed authority on the basis of information in its possession is of the opinion that prima facie an authorised income-tax practitioner is guilty of misconduct in connection with any income-tax proceedings, it shall frame definite charges against the income-tax practitioner and shall communicate them in writing to him together with a statement of the allegations in support of the charges. The authorised income-tax practitioner shall be required to submit within such time as may be specified by the prescribed authority a written statement of his defence and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person." On the basis of the above provisions, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that before arriving at a conclusion that a prima facie case of being guilty of misconduct exists, the question of framing charges or proceeding with an enquiry would not arise and consequently even before arriving at a conclusion about the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case, there is a duty on the part of the respondent to give an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause against the allegations. On a careful reading of the section as well as the rules referred to supra, I am of the view that the submission on behalf of the petitioner is not well merited. The provisions of sub-section (5) of section 288 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, empowers the designated authority to pass an order which will have an impact on the right of the person concerned to appear before the income-tax authority. Sub-section (6) of section 288 provides the relevant procedure in that it ordains that no order or direction under the earlier provisions shall be made in respect of any person unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is this opportunity that is visualised under sub-section (6) of section 288 that is taken care of under rules 59 to 65. Rule 60 which has been strongly relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner only prescribes that where the prescribed authority, "on the basis of information in its possession", is of the opinion "that prima facie" an authorised income-tax practitioner is guilty of misconduct in connection with any income-tax proceedings, it shall frame "definite charges against the income-tax practitioner" and shall communicate them in writing to him together with other materials stipulated therein. The emphasis given in the rule to the need for the existence of a prima facie case even to frame a charge, is only to impose a restriction on the exercise of power itself and ensure initiation of action not in a routine mechanical manner but with some restraint and responsibility. The emphasis given in the rule to the need for the existence of a prima facie case even to frame a charge, is only to impose a restriction on the exercise of power itself and ensure initiation of action not in a routine mechanical manner but with some restraint and responsibility. Such prima facie conclusion is to be arrived at before issuing the charge memo on the basis of information in his possession and not on the basis of any materials to be gathered in any regular enquiry after giving an opportunity to the petitioner. The scheme underlying the provision of rule 60 is only to ensure as stated earlier that action is initiated only where there is a prima facie case and not in every case of alleged misconduct in a routine and mechanical manner. Except the above, there is nothing in the rule or in the provisions of the Act or the Act and Rules put together which has the effect of even suggesting that before even initiating the proceedings by the issue of a charge memo as contemplated under rule 60 of the Income-tax Rules, an opportunity has to be given to the petitioner and without doing so, no charge memo can be issued. Accepting the plea of the petitioner may lead to other complications as also absurdities and in my view the initiation of the proceedings in this case could not be said to be in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules referred to above. It is futile for the petitioner to contend that merely because in the charge memo it is stated that the petitioner is guilty of a particular misconduct, the authority had come to a conclusion already and such a conclusion ought not to have been arrived at even before giving the petitioner an opportunity. It is futile for the petitioner to contend that merely because in the charge memo it is stated that the petitioner is guilty of a particular misconduct, the authority had come to a conclusion already and such a conclusion ought not to have been arrived at even before giving the petitioner an opportunity. The charge has to be read in a particular form indicative of a prima facie opinion on the materials available with the authority and, thus viewed, no exception can be taken to the form of the charges in the impugned proceedingsSo far as the other grievance sought to be made out by learned counsel for the petitioner about the taking into account of instances outside of the purview of the appropriate authority is concerned, I am of the view that if the petitioner so desires he could have them agitated before the very authority when submitting his explanation and it will be unnecessary as also inappropriate for this court to express any view in this matter at this stage of the proceedings. For all the reasons stated above, I do not see any merit in the objection raised against the charge memo at this stage. The writ petition, therefore, fails and shall stand dismissed. No costs. The petitioner shall have four weeks' time to make his representation to the charge memo. It is needless to point out that he will have all his rights and privileges as are permissible under the relevant rules, fully preserved including the right to raise any objections whatsoever except the one which has been rejected in this order.