THREE part-time Horwich firefighters will appear before a disciplinary tribunal next week, amid claims hoax calls were made to boost wages.

The three men have been called to a special fire authority committee meeting, following an inquiry into alleged corruption at the Chorley New Road station.

A planned fire brigade disciplinary hearing should have been heard on August 7 but was cancelled just days before it was to have gone ahead.

Chief fire officer George Almond is to be called as a witness and could not have been involved in the brigade hearing, so it has had to be dealt with by the more independent fire authority.

The men facing the hearing are sub-officer Malcolm Pye and firemen Vinnie Carroll and Tony Critchley.

It is understood that two of the men are to be represented by Fire Brigade Union officials.

They are all retained firefighters who wait at home on stand-by during weekends and evenings and are called out only when there is a fire.

The hearing, scheduled to last for two days, will take place at the headquarters in Swinton. A resolution has still to be passed as to whether the tribunal, which will consider charges under the Fire Services (Discipline) Regulations 1985, will be heard without the press being invited to report on it.

The allegations date back to a fire brigade inquiry which was launched in 1997.

The internal investigation was suspended for several months while police detectives probed the corruption claims and claims of hoax calls.

A decision was taken by the crown prosecution service not to take the matter further and fire brigade bosses resumed their own internal investigation.

Initially 12 firefighters were suspended last year - including 10 part-timers and two full-time officers.

All have since had their suspensions lifted apart from the three men due up before the tribunal on next Tuesday and Wednesday.

Mr Pye is charged with corruption and malpractice and Mr Carroll and Mr Critchley with falsehood. All deny the charges.

A fire brigade spokesman said today: "Any decision which may be reached can be appealed against if so wished.

"That would mean the case would go before a second committee made up of members who had not heard the first hearing."