The Office Romance Policy Doesn't Make Any Sense

I am a big fan of the American "The Office," but I have to admit I think they play a little too loose with their plots to make things work out the right way.  Case in point: Michael and Holly's romance.

1. Michael and Holly are dating, and don't disclose this to corporate.  When Wallace finds out, he says Holly can't stay in the branch.  

BUT: Jan and Michael dated, and they continued to do so after signing what Michael referred to as a "love contract."  Jan was actually Michael's superior, and therefore the relationship was fraught with more potential conflicts of interest.  Holly actually doesn't work for Michael, but for corporate directly as HR (as we know, since Michael can't fire Toby, despite his best efforts).  

2.  David Wallace's solution is to move Holly to another branch far, far away.  So Michael and Holly split up.  

BUT: If Holly's being removed (and moving), why not stay together?  Furthermore, if the result is for them to break up, then why not let Holly stay in Scranton?  Tension is no excuse.  Angela and Dwight and Andy continue to work together, and that was far more f*cked up than anything that happened between Michael and Holly.

 

3.  So now Holly is dating the "Incredibly Annoying Cell Phone Guy" instead of Michael.   And he happens to also be a coworker, this time one of her branch's salespeople.  

BUT:  Why is it OK for them to date?  Shouldn't the same rules apply?  Even more so, since she's HR and may apply favoritism towards a branch employee?

 

It seems to me that either (a) removing Holly was actually punishment for Michael for not disclosing the relationship earlier (which seems excessive); (b) the rules of office romance are created by fiat by Wallace; or (c) the writers just needed to arbitrarily change things to maintain the unrequited Jim-Pam effect that kept the show so interesting for three seasons.  

I invite explanations or rebuttals.