Shimla, May 24 -- The Himachal Pradesh high court questioned the delay on part of the state government in acting on an inquiry report filed by additional chief secretary (home) Onkar Chand Sharma into the death of HPPCL chief engineer-cum-general manager Vimal Negi. "This court is of the view that the mode and manner in which the government dealt with the report of the ACS (home) raises serious questions," justice Ajay Mohan Goel said in the order. "The report of the inquiry conducted by an officer of the rank of ACS has not seen the light of the day. This inquiry report casts serious aspersions on the conduct of the superior officers of late Vimal Negi and raises fingers on the impropriety exercised by them to allegedly confer favours over a project proponent," the court added. It said, "The affidavit by the Shimla superintendent of police demonstrates that no concrete inquiry in this regard has been done by the SIT till date, i.e. for almost last two months, despite the fact that from day one, the family of the deceased has been crying hoarse that Vimal Negi's disappearance and death are shrouded with suspicious circumstances." The ACS submitted the report to the government on April 8. It has neither been made public so far, nor has any action taken based on its findings and recommendations. Advocate general Anup Rattan had submitted during the hearing that, "As the report is under consideration of the competent authority and as the same had not yet been accepted, it was correctly withheld." However, during the hearing, it came to fore that on May 14, the ACS received a communication from secretary (power) mentioning that the "report was examined in consultation with the advocate general and it was advised that the inquiry report was a set of statements and had travelled beyond the scope". The matter was reverted to the ACS with the remarks: "In the inquiry report, certain observations were made against delinquent officers without giving them an opportunity of rebuttal, which was an essential requirement of the principles of natural justice." Taking note, the high court said, "...when secretary (power) had called upon the additional chief secretary (home) to hold a fact finding inquiry and the officer had done so, the state ought to have had acted upon it dispassionately, rather than becoming a mouthpiece of delinquent officers so as to propagate the cause of delinquent officers." The judgment added, "Once the officer had submitted his report, the competent authority could have furnished the inquiry report to the delinquent officers and sought their response. However, rather than doing this, the state chose to sit over the same and ensured that the inquiry report does not see the light of the day."...