I frequently come across people who go no further than the text defining rules and who try to enforce said rules without taking into consideration the circumstances behind rule offenses or the potential reasons why the rule was put into effect to begin with. I can imagine that not being a precise enough definition, so here is an example:
Management in an imaginary software development company with a limited number of office computers puts a rule into effect prohibiting employees from coming to work when they're not scheduled to in an attempt to ensure there are always open computers available. PersonA (who is not scheduled to work) needs to give PersonB (currently working) a flashdrive, and plans to leave the office immediately after giving it to PersonB. PersonA arrives at the office, but PersonC refuses to let him/her into the building, even after PersonA explains that he/she just needs to drop something off. PersonC states that "rules are rules" and "they cannot be broken under any circumstance" without any consideration for why the rule exists and the circumstances regarding PersonA "breaking" the rule.
Regardless of whether or not that viewpoint of rules is right/wrong and what PersonA could have done differently (e.g. give the flashdrive to PersonC to give to PersonB), is there a term respectful enough to be used in a workplace discussion that describes that way of thinking regarding rules that's more manageable than "person who regularly enforces rules verbatim without any consideration for circumstances"?