Two days after he told a gathering of public servants at his valedictory address that he found "most unsatisfactory" the process by which he remained under an inquiry, apparently then unfinished, he might have found the timing of its conclusion just as frustrating.

Merit protection commissioner Linda Waugh cleared Mr Lloyd on serious allegations about his conduct in emailing research by the Public Service Commission to right wing think tank the Institute of Public Affairs, where he is a member and was a former director.

Perhaps of greatest consequence, she found his actions were not serious enough to warrant sanction. But Mr Lloyd ends his tenure having been found to have failed in upholding his agency's good reputation and public service values requiring bureaucrats to "act in a way that models and promotes the highest standard of ethical behaviour."

Even if the investigation had finished earlier, Mr Lloyd was evidently not going to face any punishment. He announced in June he would resign, but denied a possible inquiry was the reason he was leaving and said it was time to draw his long career to a close.

Mr Lloyd leaves the public service without sanction but obviously unhappy about the process that put him under an inquiry criticising his conduct on his very last day in the Australian Public Service. In coming to his defence, the Abbott-era public service minister and conservative senator Eric Abetz added to Mr Lloyd's denunciation of the inquiry process, calling it farcical and alleging a lack of procedural fairness.

Opponents of Mr Lloyd earlier had their fears about the investigation, too. Labor senator Jenny McAllister, who with Penny Wong led scrutiny of the then-commissioner in Senate estimates, raised the prospect the inquiry could have to be abandoned upon his retirement if it remained unfinished. "We deserve better," she said.

Why did the findings come when they did, and was the process fair? Mr Lloyd could have more to say on the second question in coming weeks. Part of the answer to the first surely lies in the fact the merit protection commissioner's role remained unfilled by a permanent appointee from January until June.

The complaint against Mr Lloyd, received first by the Prime Minister's department in December and sent the next month to the acting merit protection commissioner Mark Davidson, may have been investigated sooner had the government been faster to fill the position permanently. Without commenting on the actions of any people involved, the process governing investigations into the public service commissioner could be improved.

These matters deserve the scrutiny of a parliamentary committee inquiry, which should offer recommendations that may have prevented the sequence of events that has opened the process to criticism.

The investigation into Mr Lloyd's conduct ideally would have been finished early in the year and without the to-and-fro in Senate estimates about its existence, and status. Whether it involve creating other options for investigation if the merit protection commissioner is unavailable, or requiring disclosure that an investigation is actually under way, there is a need for change.