A FIREFIGHTER at the centre of a hoax calls scandal claims that attempts to clear his name are being blocked by Greater Manchester Fire Service.

Malcolm Pye, a part-time sub officer with the Horwich brigade, was given three months to quit after being found guilty of "corrupt or improper practice" following a brigade tribunal in August.

The 41-year-old father of two has always protested his innocence, claiming he has been made a scapegoat by the brigade.

Following the August hearing, he vowed to do everything possible to clear his name.

Mr Pye, of Pioneer Street, Horwich, launched an appeal immediately after the hearing.

But he told the BEN: "As part of my full-time work I was asked to go on a course in December.

"I wrote to the Fire Service, telling them the dates I would be unavailable for the appeal hearing."

But when the date for the appeal came through, he was angered to discover it was in the middle of the time he would not be available.

"I gave them plenty of advance notice of the dates I would be unavailable, but they have still gone for them," he said.

"It seems they are deliberately making it difficult for me to fight my case."

The allegations against Mr Pye date back to 1998 and concern a bogus call about a grass fire on Sheep Lane.

It was claimed that Mr Pye made the call so he and his crew could collect an extra £12.77 call-out money.

The claims were also investigated by the police and a dozen firefighters, including Mr Pye, were arrested and quizzed.

But Mr Pye, who served for 15-years with the Horwich Brigade, says no criminal charges were brought against him and the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to proceed with the case.

Two other firefighters under Mr Pye's command, Vinnie Carroll and Tony Critchley, were charged with falsehood arising from the alleged incident.

Mr Critchley was cleared of the charge while Mr Carroll resigned from the force a week before the hearing, Neither man attended the tribunal to give evidence.

Harry O'Byrne, who represented Mr Pye at the tribunal, maintains that the case against him was "fundamentally flawed" and based on "purely anecdotal evidence".

"At the tribunal we were not even given the opportunity to question the people who had made the allegations against Mr Pye. They were not present," said Mr O'Byrne.

"Under the rules of natural justice it is unfair to convict Mr Pye when we were given no opportunity to cross-examine the people who accused him."

Mr Pye said: "All the other firefighters who were questioned about this immediately brought in the union but I didn't want to waste anyone's time so decided to fight it myself.

"I was the only one not represented by the union and the only one charged. I was obviously seen as a weak link."

Even though no criminal charges have ever been brought against him, Mr Pye says he has already been judged by the community of Horwich.

He says the case has turned his life on its head and put strain on his marriage to wife Julie, 38.

"This is a small community and word soon goes around," he said.

"My children have been pointed at and made fun of in the street and the strain nearly wrecked my marriage."

Mr O'Byrne added: "We intend to take Mr Pye's fight for justice all the way to the top but we fear that, after the way he has been treated so far, the next hearing will be a rubber- stamping exercise on behalf of the fire service.

"If that is the case, then we have instructed a solicitor and will be looking to take the case to an industrial tribunal."

A spokesman for Greater Manchester Fire Service said they sent a memo out to Mr Pye on October 17 with suggested dates for the hearing and confirmed that he replied to it via his superiors at Horwich the same day.

"Unfortunately the reply did not reach us until October 24 and this is where the confusion has arisen," the spokesman said.

"This was not deliberate. We acted in good faith and have now agreed to adjourn the hearing until another convenient date."

The Fire Service dismissed any claims that the future hearing would be a rubber-stamping exercise.

"The will be a full re-hearing in front of different members of the authority who were not concerned with the first hearing," the spokesman said

"As far as we are concerned, it will be a full and fair hearing."