RISHI Sunak is taking no action against Tory MP Mark Spencer after an official investigation was unable to determine whether he told a colleague her Muslim faith played a role in her sacking.

The inquiry by the Prime Minister’s ethics adviser Sir Laurie Magnus was critical of  Spencer’s actions as chief whip but cleared him of breaching the Ministerial Code.

Nusrat Ghani had alleged Spencer said her “Muslimness” was linked to her exit from her position as a junior minister in Boris Johnson’s government.

Magnus noted Spencer’s “shortcomings” as he published a long-delayed report into the claims on Thursday.

READ MORE: Labour spotted campaigning in Margaret Ferrier's seat

But the adviser did not find a “clear failure” to uphold the Ministerial Code as he cited “inconclusive evidence” on whether the remarks were made.

Both Conservative MPs at the centre of the row now serve in Sunak’s Government despite remaining “aggrieved and personally affected” by the row.

Sunak wrote to Magnus noting that the events surrounding the sacking had been an “unsatisfactory experience for both ministers involved”.

“But in the absence of clear evidence, it would not be right to take further action,”  Sunak wrote.

“I have spoken to both ministers and encouraged them to heed your advice to pull together in the finest tradition of public service.”

Ghani highlighted there was “no criticism or doubt expressed” about her allegations and she will continue to serve as a business minister after the “whole sorry episode”.

An investigation was launched in January last year after the MP for Wealden in East Sussex made her allegations about her 2020 sacking public.

Magnus was unable to “draw a clear picture” of the discussions between the pair in 2020 as no independent witness was present for the “exit interview”.

He said the “differing accounts” mean he is “not able to conclude with sufficient confidence what was or was not said at these two meetings”.

READ MORE: Humza Yousaf hits out at 'conspiracy theories' over Peter Murrell arrest

With Ghani having “serious concerns” about “negative and discriminatory comments about her faith”, Magnus said Johnson arranged a meeting with her.

The then-prime minister first spoke to Spencer, but the chief whip “omitted to mention” the first of his two meetings with Ghani on March 4 2020.

Johnson went into the meeting with no knowledge of the crucial event, Sir Laurie said, adding: “This was not helpful.”

The then-premier was said to have later suggested that if Ghani did not make a formal complaint he would still encourage her to speak to the Tory Islamophobia inquiry.

Ghani did not believe it to be an “appropriate” means to resolve her allegation.

After she went public in January last year, Spencer posted a series of tweets identifying himself as the alleged culprit and claiming the Islamophobia inquiry found there was “no credible basis for the claims”.

Magnus said Spencer, the MP for Sherwood, who is now an environment minister, had done so “without evidence”, and should have “taken more care” with the late-night remarks on social media.

The adviser said his investigation may have been “unnecessary” if Spencer had had a witness present for the meeting with Ghani.

“Both Ms Ghani and Mr Spencer consider each other to be mistaken in their recollections and both remain aggrieved and personally affected by the impact of this public disagreement,” Sir Laurie concluded.

READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon pulls out of climate change event

“I would hope that, as dedicated public servants and ministers of the crown, they will now find a way to move on from these events.”

In a statement, Ghani said Spencer will have to explain criticism of his “shortcomings” and other failings.

“There is no criticism or doubt expressed regarding my version of events,” she said.

“Others will have to explain the report noting the ‘omissions’, ‘shortcomings’, ‘incomplete information’, ‘inaccurate briefings’ and claims ‘implied without evidence’ in their actions and story.

“We all serve at the Prime Minister’s choosing and there is no shame in a political career ending. But to be told your faith and identity is the reason for it cannot be acceptable in any way.

“The impact of being told this was devastating and my motivation in pursuing the complaint was to ensure it wasn’t buried, but that it ended with me so that no other colleague would have to endure anything similar.

“As I said last year, my party is better and bigger than this whole sorry episode which has only been bearable due to the support of so many Conservative colleagues.”